Re: What evidence is there that the Temple of Solomon existed?
Kendall K. Down
"straight joint" in the eastern wall of the Haram, where the stones were not
keyed into each other.
Normal brick/stone work looks like this:
_____________________
____|_____|_____|____
_|_____|_____|_____|_
____|_____|_____|____
but at this point you have a break in the pattern:
_____________________
____|_____|_____|____
_|__|__|_____|_____|_
____|_____|_____|____
Furthermore the stones to the left of the straight joint are typical
Herodian while those to the right are typical Israelite work. Kenyon's
suggestion is that the stones to the right represent the original temple
platform built by Solomon while those to the left are Herod's enlargement of
the platform to south and west.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premiere archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
Matt Giwer
> So is there any historical or archeological evidence for the existence
> of Solomon's Temple and what do think of the Jerusalem Archeological
> Park (other than the web page is a pain to navigate)
There is ZERO physical evidence of any such temple just as there is ZERO evidence of Solomon,
David, Moses, Abraham or biblical Israel. There is ZERO historical reference to any of those people
or places outside of the OT, pious translations of a few two and three word stela inscriptions
notwithstanding.
> http://www.archpark.org.il/index.asp
A tremendous waste of effort to make figments of the imagination appear credible. Consider it the
Jewish equivalent of the Christian creationist theme park.
--
Thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars
to install an islamic government in Iraq. That is
something only an Aggie could do.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3385
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/
Matt Giwer
> Actually there is evidence for Solomon's temple. Kathleen Kenyon noted a
> "straight joint" in the eastern wall of the Haram, where the stones were not
> keyed into each other.
>
> Normal brick/stone work looks like this:
>
> _____________________
> ____|_____|_____|____
> _|_____|_____|_____|_
> ____|_____|_____|____
>
> but at this point you have a break in the pattern:
>
> _____________________
> ____|_____|_____|____
> _|__|__|_____|_____|_
> ____|_____|_____|____
>
> Furthermore the stones to the left of the straight joint are typical
> Herodian while those to the right are typical Israelite work. Kenyon's
> suggestion is that the stones to the right represent the original temple
> platform built by Solomon while those to the left are Herod's enlargement of
> the platform to south and west.
As there is no "israelite" construction upon what do you base your statement?
--
The only "torture" troops punished so far were those
dumb enough to let themselves be photographed. The
message is obvious.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3408
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html
Jim Webster
"Matt Giwer" <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AXq5e.25099$vd....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Janos Kaldy wrote:
> > So is there any historical or archeological evidence for the existence
> > of Solomon's Temple and what do think of the Jerusalem Archeological
> > Park (other than the web page is a pain to navigate)
>
> There is ZERO physical evidence of any such temple just as there is ZERO
evidence of Solomon,
> David, Moses, Abraham or biblical Israel. There is ZERO historical
reference to any of those people
> or places outside of the OT, pious translations of a few two and three
word stela inscriptions
> notwithstanding.
>
> > http://www.archpark.org.il/index.asp
>
> A tremendous waste of effort to make figments of the imagination appear
credible. Consider it the
> Jewish equivalent of the Christian creationist theme park.
this is said by a person who claims he treats the OT in exactly the same way
as he treats any other historical source
Jim Webster
Doug Weller
wrote:
>Actually there is evidence for Solomon's temple. Kathleen Kenyon noted a
>"straight joint" in the eastern wall of the Haram, where the stones were not
>keyed into each other.
>
>Normal brick/stone work looks like this:
>
>_____________________
>____|_____|_____|____
>_|_____|_____|_____|_
>____|_____|_____|____
>
>but at this point you have a break in the pattern:
>
>_____________________
>____|_____|_____|____
>_|__|__|_____|_____|_
>____|_____|_____|____
>
>Furthermore the stones to the left of the straight joint are typical
>Herodian while those to the right are typical Israelite work. Kenyon's
>suggestion is that the stones to the right represent the original temple
>platform built by Solomon while those to the left are Herod's enlargement of
>the platform to south and west.
Maybe. Others disagree though.
Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Kendall K. Down
Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> There is ZERO physical evidence of any such temple
I notice you don't attempt to answer the physical evidence I reported.
> just as there is ZERO evidence of Solomon
Well, somebody built the massive Haram enclosure. What would you like to
call him? Joe? Harry? Mary Ann? Whatever name you give him, however, you
will end up with someone with unusual power and wealth for Palestine:
building the Haram could not be done by two men and a dog.
> David, Moses, Abraham or biblical Israel. There is ZERO historical reference to any of those people
> or places outside of the OT, pious translations of a few two and three word stela inscriptions
> notwithstanding.
Oooooh! Thus we blithely dismiss the Merneptah Stele, the Black Obelisk of
Shalmaneser III, the Kirkuk Inscription, the House of David inscription, and
all the rest of them.
Amazing how prejudice blinds people.
Kendall K. Down
Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> As there is no "israelite" construction upon what do you base your statement?
Upon the statement and terminology of Dame Kathleen Kenyon who, I suspect,
knows (or rather, knew) rather more about the subject than you do.
Matt Giwer
>>Janos Kaldy wrote:
>>>http://www.archpark.org.il/index.asp
When Suetonius relates the Emperor making the lame walk and the blind see I treat it the way as
bible claims to the same things.
--
If democracies do not make war on each other what
the hell was the American civil war all about?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3388
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml
Jim Webster
> Jim Webster wrote:
> > "Matt Giwer" <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:AXq5e.25099$vd....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> >>Janos Kaldy wrote:
>
> >>>So is there any historical or archeological evidence for the existence
> >>>of Solomon's Temple and what do think of the Jerusalem Archeological
> >>>Park (other than the web page is a pain to navigate)
>
> >>There is ZERO physical evidence of any such temple just as there is ZERO
evidence of Solomon,
> >>David, Moses, Abraham or biblical Israel. There is ZERO historical
reference to any of those people
> >>or places outside of the OT, pious translations of a few two and three
word stela inscriptions
> >>notwithstanding.
>
> >>>http://www.archpark.org.il/index.asp
>
> >>A tremendous waste of effort to make figments of the imagination appear
credible. Consider it the
> >>Jewish equivalent of the Christian creationist theme park.
>
> > this is said by a person who claims he treats the OT in exactly the same
way
> > as he treats any other historical source
>
> When Suetonius relates the Emperor making the lame walk and the blind see
I treat it the way as
> bible claims to the same things.
>
an intelligent person would actually be trying to work out what was behind
the claims and would look at other sources, they wouldn't merely dismiss it
out of hand
Jim Webster
Kendall K. Down
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> wrote:
> Maybe. Others disagree though.
Indeed - there is hardly a single discovery that has not had its critics.
However the "straight joint" is certainly there and, to my fairly inexpert
eye, the stones certainly look Herodian on one side and Israelite on the
other. It would be interesting to excavate the area and see just how far
down the joint goes and whether the difference continues down to the
foundations.
Matt Giwer
>>Jim Webster wrote:
>>>>Janos Kaldy wrote:
>>>>>http://www.archpark.org.il/index.asp
Attempts to aggrandize otherwise mediocre persons to a gullible, superstitious, ignorant populace.
To create a sense of awe and wonder in the uneducated.
Tell me when I am getting close.
--
Hodie quinto Idus Apriles MMV est
-- The Ferric Webceasar
Matt Giwer
> In message <bZq5e.25100$vd.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
> Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>As there is no "israelite" construction upon what do you base your statement?
> Upon the statement and terminology of Dame Kathleen Kenyon who, I suspect,
> knows (or rather, knew) rather more about the subject than you do.
Considering her last "dig" ended nearly 40 years ago and that the old testament guided her
conclusions, it is necessary to point out her "science" was tainted and now hopelessly out of date,
overtaken by nearly fourty years of research. Since then her "Jericho" construction has been found
much more common towards Syria and Iraq indicating they were built as outposts from those areas.
--
When you hear mention of scholars always think of National
Merit scholars to keep things in perspective.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3415
Jim Webster
> Attempts to aggrandize otherwise mediocre persons to a gullible,
superstitious, ignorant populace.
> To create a sense of awe and wonder in the uneducated.
>
> Tell me when I am getting close.
when you can prove that the uneducated were literate in the ancient world
Jim Webster
Matt Giwer
> In message <AXq5e.25099$vd....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
> Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>There is ZERO physical evidence of any such temple
> I notice you don't attempt to answer the physical evidence I reported.
I guess I missed your physical evidence connecting anything to Solomon.
>>just as there is ZERO evidence of Solomon
> Well, somebody built the massive Haram enclosure. What would you like to
> call him? Joe? Harry? Mary Ann? Whatever name you give him, however, you
> will end up with someone with unusual power and wealth for Palestine:
> building the Haram could not be done by two men and a dog.
Argument from ignorance (who else could it be?) has been identified as a logical fallacy for some
2500 years.
As you have no evidence of who built it you insist it must have been the mythical Solomon.
Herod I is an obvious candidate although there is reference he expanded the previous structure so
whomever is credited with the previous is most likely. Herod's temple is called the third simply
because of the assumption Solomon built one. But as there is no evidence of Solomon or his biblical
Israel that goes the way of legend leaving Herod as building the second.
>>David, Moses, Abraham or biblical Israel. There is ZERO historical reference to any of those people
>>or places outside of the OT, pious translations of a few two and three word stela inscriptions
>>notwithstanding.
> Oooooh! Thus we blithely dismiss the Merneptah Stele, the Black Obelisk of
> Shalmaneser III, the Kirkuk Inscription, the House of David inscription, and
> all the rest of them.
> Amazing how prejudice blinds people.
Absent physical evidence both biblical Israel and Atlantis are myths. Note BIBLICAL Israel, the
Israel as described in the OT, the Israel of Solomon as described in the OT. I have always said
BIBLICAL Israel; that means as described in the bible.
--
This summer 9000 squatters will finally make Aliyah to Israel.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3392
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml
Bernardz
webm...@diggingsonline.com says...
> In message <66kd5157gtpk9ul4d...@4ax.com>
> Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Maybe. Others disagree though.
>
> Indeed - there is hardly a single discovery that has not had its critics.
> However the "straight joint" is certainly there and, to my fairly inexpert
> eye, the stones certainly look Herodian on one side and Israelite on the
> other. It would be interesting to excavate the area and see just how far
> down the joint goes and whether the difference continues down to the
> foundations.
>
> Ken Down
>
>
Lets put it this way, if there was clear proof that it was Solomon's
temple you would have heard about it quite distinctly now!
What we can say is from the description is that is appears from biblical
description of being a fairly typical design for a temple of that time
in the area.
That such a design would be known by people 700 years later as Matt
Giwer would have us believe, long after these temples had disappeared
and disappeared is ridiculous
Check him out here.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/
--
It is frightening when you read many of these posts and you realize that
most have been carefully thought out before posting.
Observations of Bernard - No 73
Kendall K. Down
Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> Considering her last "dig" ended nearly 40 years ago and that the old testament guided her
> conclusions, it is necessary to point out her "science" was tainted and now hopelessly out of date,
> overtaken by nearly fourty years of research. Since then her "Jericho" construction has been found
> much more common towards Syria and Iraq indicating they were built as outposts from those areas.
The fact that Dame Kathleen Kenyon last dug 40 years ago is relevant. The
fact that she used all the sources available in interpreting her finds is to
her credit, despite what bigots like yourself think.
Certainly archaeology has progressed since then as new techniques have
developed. I am not aware that any signficant conclusions she reached have
been overthrown. For example, the fact that artefacts discovered first at
Jericho are now known to be common elsewhere is an addition to knowledge; it
does not invalidate the worth or significance of her work.
Matt Giwer
> In message <wv06e.37452$Pc.3...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
> Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>Considering her last "dig" ended nearly 40 years ago and that the old testament guided her
>>conclusions, it is necessary to point out her "science" was tainted and now hopelessly out of date,
>>overtaken by nearly fourty years of research. Since then her "Jericho" construction has been found
>>much more common towards Syria and Iraq indicating they were built as outposts from those areas.
> The fact that Dame Kathleen Kenyon last dug 40 years ago is relevant. The
> fact that she used all the sources available in interpreting her finds is to
> her credit, despite what bigots like yourself think.
> Certainly archaeology has progressed since then as new techniques have
> developed. I am not aware that any signficant conclusions she reached have
> been overthrown. For example, the fact that artefacts discovered first at
> Jericho are now known to be common elsewhere is an addition to knowledge; it
> does not invalidate the worth or significance of her work.
What has been learned indicates it did NOT originate locally and is therefore indicative of
contruction methods outside of bibleland. Therefore any statement of "israelite" architecture is
false on its face.
--
World War II was fought
a) to end the Holocaust
b) to save the Jews
c) to end German antisemitism
d) all of the above
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3405
Matt Giwer
>>In message <66kd5157gtpk9ul4d...@4ax.com>
>> Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Maybe. Others disagree though.
>>Indeed - there is hardly a single discovery that has not had its critics.
>>However the "straight joint" is certainly there and, to my fairly inexpert
>>eye, the stones certainly look Herodian on one side and Israelite on the
>>other. It would be interesting to excavate the area and see just how far
>>down the joint goes and whether the difference continues down to the
>>foundations.
>>Ken Down
> Lets put it this way, if there was clear proof that it was Solomon's
> temple you would have heard about it quite distinctly now!
> What we can say is from the description is that is appears from biblical
> description of being a fairly typical design for a temple of that time
> in the area.
> That such a design would be known by people 700 years later as Matt
> Giwer would have us believe, long after these temples had disappeared
> and disappeared is ridiculous
What gave you the idea they had disappeared by then? Or are you of the impression that because we
recently uncovered them they vanished a few years after being constructed?
At worst the foundations were still around, probably a few partial columns still standing. What
imagination would it take? They were huge constructions, expensive. They likely stood for hundreds
of years. Some like the Parthenon are still around.
> Check him out here.
> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/
Check out the link marked nizkook in my sig.
--
How do Iraq's WMDs differ from Germany's gas chambers?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3404
Kendall K. Down
Bernardz <Berna...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> Lets put it this way, if there was clear proof that it was Solomon's
> temple you would have heard about it quite distinctly now!
The only clear proof would be Solomon's name signed on every one of the
rocks plus a hologram showing the king himself superintending the work - and
even then Matt would disagree.
However the evidence points to a ruler of the Israelite period who had
sufficient power and wealth to construct the Haram, a fairly massive
undertaking for those days.
> What we can say is from the description is that is appears from biblical
> description of being a fairly typical design for a temple of that time
> in the area.
We don't know what the temple looked like, there are no remains from it;
however the Haram enclosure is certainly not typical of the period, even if
the stonework is.
> That such a design would be known by people 700 years later as Matt
> Giwer would have us believe, long after these temples had disappeared
> and disappeared is ridiculous
Matt is so prejudiced it is unbelievable; I wonder what his beef is? Is he
anti-Israel, anti-Christian, or just anti?
Kendall K. Down
Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> Herod I is an obvious candidate
No he is not, because the style of stonework is completely different from
his but extremely similar to that of the period classed as "Israelite".
> But as there is no evidence of Solomon or his biblical
> Israel that goes the way of legend leaving Herod as building the second.
As I said, if this stonework is not evidence of Solomon - and it is only
your prejudice that leads you to that conclusion - then it is evidence of
someone very much like Solomon.
Matt Giwer
In the ancient world there was no such thing as silent reading. All written material was read by
speaking it aloud. Any reading would be heard by the slaves. Slaves of the rich would be educated
enough to do good work and have these read. Itinerant readers on street corners for coins telling
stories of the emperors. The rich having their servants entertain the masses as a public good.
--
The grave dangers of assimilation.
What a christian hating concept.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3390
Jim Webster
> Jim Webster wrote:
> > "Matt Giwer" <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:Tz06e.26537$vd.2...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> >>Attempts to aggrandize otherwise mediocre persons to a gullible,
superstitious, ignorant populace.
> >>To create a sense of awe and wonder in the uneducated.
>
> >>Tell me when I am getting close.
>
> > when you can prove that the uneducated were literate in the ancient
world
>
> In the ancient world there was no such thing as silent reading. All
written material was read by
> speaking it aloud. Any reading would be heard by the slaves. Slaves of the
rich would be educated
> enough to do good work and have these read. Itinerant readers on street
corners for coins telling
> stories of the emperors. The rich having their servants entertain the
masses as a public good.
and you have evidence for the itinerant readers on street corners. let us
have some of these citations of contemporary sources you are so keen on
Jim Webster
Bernardz
webm...@diggingsonline.com says...
> In message <MPG.1cc38207e9dfc491989cba@news>
> Bernardz <Berna...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lets put it this way, if there was clear proof that it was Solomon's
> > temple you would have heard about it quite distinctly now!
>
> The only clear proof would be Solomon's name signed on every one of the
> rocks plus a hologram showing the king himself superintending the work
Historians do not really demand that sort of a level of proof.
> - and
> even then Matt would disagree.
Probably. To Matt, the Holocaust never happened yet much more proof
could anyone demand?
>
> However the evidence points to a ruler of the Israelite period who had
> sufficient power and wealth to construct the Haram, a fairly massive
> undertaking for those days.
???????????
Please explain.
>
> > What we can say is from the description is that is appears from biblical
> > description of being a fairly typical design for a temple of that time
> > in the area.
>
> We don't know what the temple looked like, there are no remains from it;
> however the Haram enclosure is certainly not typical of the period, even if
> the stonework is.
You maybe surprised
Check out the following book
William G Dever
What did the biblical writers know & when did they know it?
p144-157
>
> > That such a design would be known by people 700 years later as Matt
> > Giwer would have us believe, long after these temples had disappeared
> > and disappeared is ridiculous
>
> Matt is so prejudiced it is unbelievable; I wonder what his beef is? Is he
> anti-Israel, anti-Christian, or just anti?
He told me.
Anti-Christian by hitting Jews, he feels that he is knocking two birds
with one stone.
>
> Ken Down
Kendall K. Down
Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> What has been learned indicates it did NOT originate locally and is therefore indicative of
> contruction methods outside of bibleland. Therefore any statement of "israelite" architecture is
> false on its face.
But entirely correct if you understand it - as I think everyone but you does
- as Israelite Period architecture.
Doug Weller
>
>and you have evidence for the itinerant readers on street corners. let us
>have some of these citations of contemporary sources you are so keen on
Best to killfile Giwer IMHO.
Doug Weller
wrote:
>
>But entirely correct if you understand it - as I think everyone but you does
>- as Israelite Period architecture.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
However...
Finkelstein & Silberman (page 128) "Moreover, for all their reported
wealth and power, neither David nor Solomon is mentioned in a single known
Egyptian or Mesopotamian text. And the archaeological evidence in
Jerusalem for the famous building projects of Solomon is nonexistent."
They go on to say that despite that, there may have been a David and a
Solomon, but there is no evidence for David's conquests or his empire, and
"In the valleys Canaanite culture continues uninterrupted. In the
highlands continuationof Iron I settlement system." As for Solomon, who
was supposed to be also active at Meggido, Hazor and Gezer, "No sign of
monumental architecture, or important city in Jerusalem. No sign of
grand-scale building activity at Meggido, Hazor and Gezer; in the north,
material culture continues."
John C Laughlin's Archaeology and the Bible says much the same.
Jim Webster
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:l2ql51h7m18ioeb1c...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:15:56 +0100, in alt.archaeology, Jim Webster wrote:
>
> >
> >and you have evidence for the itinerant readers on street corners. let us
> >have some of these citations of contemporary sources you are so keen on
>
> Best to killfile Giwer IMHO.
>
may be true, but remember, all that is needed to allow evil to flourish is
for good men to do nothing
Jim Webster
Dirk Collins
> Jim Webster wrote:
>
>> "Matt Giwer" <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:Tz06e.26537$vd.2...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
>>> Attempts to aggrandize otherwise mediocre persons to a gullible,
>>> superstitious, ignorant populace.
>>> To create a sense of awe and wonder in the uneducated.
>
>
>>> Tell me when I am getting close.
>
>
>> when you can prove that the uneducated were literate in the ancient world
>
>
> In the ancient world there was no such thing as silent reading. All
Only for a specific purpose. Private reading, private
transcription, and private writing were just as common. Uru,
Assyrian, and Babylonian merchants commonly kept cunieform tablets
of their trade inventory. Do you suppose they read those tablets
aloud for just anyone to hear?
Re,
Dirk
Kendall K. Down
Bernardz <Berna...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> Please explain.
By "the Haram" I am referring to the massive retaining wall that surrounds
the temple mount.
_____
| / \ |
|/ \|
/ \
The bit of ascii art above indicates the temple mount (the sloping lines).
The vertical lines indicate the retaining wall. The horizontal lines
indicate the large flat area on top of the mount produced by filling in this
retaining wall.
I am not aware of any similar large construction of this period outside of
Egypt.
> Anti-Christian by hitting Jews, he feels that he is knocking two birds
> with one stone.
What an idiot!
Matt Giwer
> In message <aIn6e.38512$Pc.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
> Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>What has been learned indicates it did NOT originate locally and is therefore indicative of
>>contruction methods outside of bibleland. Therefore any statement of "israelite" architecture is
>>false on its face.
> But entirely correct if you understand it - as I think everyone but you does
> - as Israelite Period architecture.
As there were no israelites in any biblical sense and as the only manner of "dating" the israelite
period is from the bible, it is equally legitimate to refer to it as Stonehenge period architecture.
It is considered proper to name architecture after the architects rather than after an arbitrary
period. It makes no sense at all to name construction after a people who cannot be dated and exist
only in two inscriptions, both of which relate their total destruction.
--
When you hear mention of scholars always think of National
Merit scholars to keep things in perspective.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3415
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml
Bernardz
webm...@diggingsonline.com says...
> In message <MPG.1cc4fab1aa4d093f989cbd@news>
> Bernardz <Berna...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Please explain.
>
> By "the Haram" I am referring to the massive retaining wall that surrounds
> the temple mount.
> _____
> | / \ |
> |/ \|
> / \
>
> The bit of ascii art above indicates the temple mount (the sloping lines).
> The vertical lines indicate the retaining wall. The horizontal lines
> indicate the large flat area on top of the mount produced by filling in this
> retaining wall.
>
> I am not aware of any similar large construction of this period outside of
> Egypt.
But this wall appears be to built much later then Solomon.
>
> > Anti-Christian by hitting Jews, he feels that he is knocking two birds
> > with one stone.
>
> What an idiot!
>
> Ken Down
>
>
--
Matt Giwer
> In message <MPG.1cc38207e9dfc491989cba@news>
> Bernardz <Berna...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>>Lets put it this way, if there was clear proof that it was Solomon's
>>temple you would have heard about it quite distinctly now!
> The only clear proof would be Solomon's name signed on every one of the
> rocks plus a hologram showing the king himself superintending the work - and
> even then Matt would disagree.
A single mention of this King Solomon outside the bible would be a first step.
Do you folks have a handbook which tells you to insist on ridiculous standards from others to cover
up the total absense of evidence of your bible beliefs?
> However the evidence points to a ruler of the Israelite period who had
> sufficient power and wealth to construct the Haram, a fairly massive
> undertaking for those days.
As there is no way to date an Israelite period save from bible myth, and the only two possible
mentions of something with a name like Israel both refer to its complete destruction, it is totally
misleading to refer to an Israelite period. As to being massive for those days, the pyramids were
nearly 2000 years earlier. Entire cities had been built in Mesopotamia for two thousand years before
and after. Assyria was rising. Why would one refer to a bible myth as a possible source?
>>What we can say is from the description is that is appears from biblical
>>description of being a fairly typical design for a temple of that time
>>in the area.
> We don't know what the temple looked like, there are no remains from it;
> however the Haram enclosure is certainly not typical of the period, even if
> the stonework is.
As Haram ordinarily means where the women and children and servants and guards lived and as bible
myth clearly gives the number of wives have you ever considered a little multiplication when
considering the size of this structure? There is such a structure in Egypt if you need a reference.
>>That such a design would be known by people 700 years later as Matt
>>Giwer would have us believe, long after these temples had disappeared
>>and disappeared is ridiculous
> Matt is so prejudiced it is unbelievable; I wonder what his beef is? Is he
> anti-Israel, anti-Christian, or just anti?
Produce physical evidence external to the bible of Solomon. Without bible myths there would be no
Solomon and no reason to assume there was ever anything beyond the two mentions of "israel" being
destroyed.
It is hardly a matter of prejudice. It is no more than asking for a source outside of a book of
magic and miracles which is clearly not meant for adults to take seriously.
--
Why is it Jews do condemn Jews marrying Gentiles but
Gentiles cannot condemn Gentiles marrying Jews?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3417
Matt Giwer
> In article <1ad391594...@diggingsonline.com>,
> webm...@diggingsonline.com says...
>
>>In message <MPG.1cc38207e9dfc491989cba@news>
>> Bernardz <Berna...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Lets put it this way, if there was clear proof that it was Solomon's
>>>temple you would have heard about it quite distinctly now!
>>The only clear proof would be Solomon's name signed on every one of the
>>rocks plus a hologram showing the king himself superintending the work
> Historians do not really demand that sort of a level of proof.
If they do not demand physical evidence of events they are not credible historians.
>>- and
>>even then Matt would disagree.
> Probably. To Matt, the Holocaust never happened yet much more proof
> could anyone demand?
All I ever said was there is no physical evidence of gas chambers. All you have ever presented was
hysterical stories which do not differ from bible myths.
>>However the evidence points to a ruler of the Israelite period who had
>>sufficient power and wealth to construct the Haram, a fairly massive
>>undertaking for those days.
> ???????????
> Please explain.
>>>What we can say is from the description is that is appears from biblical
>>>description of being a fairly typical design for a temple of that time
>>>in the area.
>>
>>We don't know what the temple looked like, there are no remains from it;
>>however the Haram enclosure is certainly not typical of the period, even if
>>the stonework is.
> You maybe surprised
> Check out the following book
> William G Dever
> What did the biblical writers know & when did they know it?
> p144-157
Go read a book. Such a brilliant repost.
>>>That such a design would be known by people 700 years later as Matt
>>>Giwer would have us believe, long after these temples had disappeared
>>>and disappeared is ridiculous
>>Matt is so prejudiced it is unbelievable; I wonder what his beef is? Is he
>>anti-Israel, anti-Christian, or just anti?
> He told me.
> Anti-Christian by hitting Jews, he feels that he is knocking two birds
> with one stone.
Three birds. Islam depends upon OT myth also. The third bird should make your bigoted heart leap
for joy.
--
Of course Hollywood ridicules Arabs. Is not Hollywood Jewish?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3399
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml
Matt Giwer
>
>>Janos Kaldy wrote:
>>
>>>So is there any historical or archeological evidence for the existence
>>>of Solomon's Temple and what do think of the Jerusalem Archeological
>>>Park (other than the web page is a pain to navigate)
>>There is ZERO physical evidence of any such temple just as there is ZERO evidence of Solomon,
>>David, Moses, Abraham or biblical Israel. There is ZERO historical reference to any of those people
>>or places outside of the OT, pious translations of a few two and three word stela inscriptions
>>notwithstanding.
>>>http://www.archpark.org.il/index.asp
>>A tremendous waste of effort to make figments of the imagination appear credible. Consider it the
>>Jewish equivalent of the Christian creationist theme park.
> this is said by a person who claims he treats the OT in exactly the same way
> as he treats any other historical source
I did not say source of history, I said historical in the sense of old source.
It is legitimate to have a virtual pristine Parthenon as there is a present Parthenon. It is not
legitimate to have a virtual "temple" when there is no evidence the temple is other than a myth.
--
The best America can field as a holocaust defender
is a religion teacher. Revisionism has won!
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3413
Bernardz
ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com says...
Not enough. Its not enough to give the bible writer much of his details
eg the wood, the height, the cherubim and the internal design.
It is only since we started digging them up that we started to realize
that they were all so similar. Its obviously a style of temple that has
disappeared and its obviously not a Greek design.
What we have to assume is that if the biblical writer wrote it 700 years
after
1) Either the biblical writer saw a similar working temple that did not
change which very unlikely as the design would have changed many times
during 700 years. Maintenance and repairs over a long period of time
will change the building.
2) The writer used an early account which would not be in Greek so their
goes your theory about Greek being the earliest writing.
> They were huge constructions, expensive. They likely stood for hundreds
> of years.
Building unless in use are quickly striped down by the locals for their
own use and/or modified by the locals for a new use.
> Some like the Parthenon are still around.
It has been rebuilt many times.
>
> > Check him out here.
> > http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/
>
> Check out the link marked nizkook in my sig.
So you are saying that you did not say these things that they say you
did. Why not deny that these quotes attributed to you are false and end
the issue.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/m/mcvay-ken/put-up-shut-up.html
Subject: Put up or shut up, Mr. Giwer: The Himmler tape
Yale F. Edeiken responded to Matt Giwer's denial of the authenticity of
the Himmler tape:
"The National Archives which hs the original says differently, of
course. But what do they know."
If Mr. Giwer is prepared to pay the full cost of voiceprint analysis of
the disputed tape and adequate control samples, should scientific
analysis demonstrate that the tape is a genuine recording of Heinrich
Himmler, the Nizkor Project is prepared to negotiate and conclude a
legally binding agreement for the purpose of determining the
authenticity of the recording.
Mr. Giwer, upon agreement to participate, shall deposit the full cost of
the laboratory analysis, as specified by the laboratory chosen to
perform the test, with a recognized trust accountant.
If the recording is determined to be genuine by reasonable scientific
standards, Mr. Giwer will agree to the immediate release of the trust
funds to the San Antonio Area Foundation Nizkor Fund as a tax-exempt
donation. If the recording is determined to be fraudulent by reasonable
scientific standards, the trust funds will be returned to Mr. Giwer
immediately, and the Nizkor Project will immediately tender reasonable
interest on the full amount to Mr. Giwer, and meet the cost of
establishing and maintaining the trust account. In no event shall either
the trust fund or either party's liability exceed $US10,000.00.
Mr. Giwer is invited to have his attorney contact me to initiate
negotiations leading to the conclusion of such an agreement. (For the
purposes of this offer, and subsequent agreement, I designate Mr.
Edeiken as my attorney of record, and hereby authorize him to negotiate
this matter in my name and to bill me for appropriate professional fees.
Should Mr. Edeiken decline this task, I shall designate another American
attorney to act in my name.)
The appropriate phrase at this point would seem to be "Put up, or shut
up, Mr. Giwer."
Mr. Edeiken's comments on Mr. McVay's offer are now available.
Matt Giwer
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:15:56 +0100, in alt.archaeology, Jim Webster wrote:
>>and you have evidence for the itinerant readers on street corners. let us
>>have some of these citations of contemporary sources you are so keen on
> Best to killfile Giwer IMHO.
Most people can't figure out how to do that.
--
When you hear mention of scholars always think of National
Merit scholars to keep things in perspective.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3415
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Matt Giwer
Bible thumpers are good people? Since when?
--
Adherence to Israel by Americans is treason.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3416
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
commentary http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/running.phtml
Matt Giwer
>> Jim Webster wrote:
I think they went some place private to read them as is casually stated in some Greek and Roman
records. It was the only way so there is no specific mention of it simply passages do not make sense
unless that were the case. Some Greek gets a private message and he retires to his quarters to read
it so no one else will know what it says. Why?
There is even one in the Gospels, Jesus writes in the dirt and "When they heard what he had
written" only makes sense if the written word is spoken aloud.
The distinction between read and read aloud only appears in the Dark Ages and makes sense in
context whereas earlier mentions of retiring in private to read only makes sense if it was spoken
aloud.
This is no secret. I first heard of it as a kid some 50 years ago.
--
Self-hating: a mental illness which afflicts only Jews
possibly caused by inbreeding.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3418
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org
Matt Giwer
> In message <lD46e.37466$Pc.2...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
> Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>Herod I is an obvious candidate
> No he is not, because the style of stonework is completely different from
> his but extremely similar to that of the period classed as "Israelite".
As you deleted it, you know I went further than that in my post.
>>But as there is no evidence of Solomon or his biblical
>>Israel that goes the way of legend leaving Herod as building the second.
> As I said, if this stonework is not evidence of Solomon - and it is only
> your prejudice that leads you to that conclusion - then it is evidence of
> someone very much like Solomon.
As you keep missing, they style of stone work has been identified and comes from Assyria and
Mesopotamia which clearly points to the north as the architects.
--
If citizens of a democracy are not responsible
for the actions of their government, what is
the point of a democracy?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3409
Matt Giwer
> "Matt Giwer" <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:t1o6e.57456$Fz.5...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>Jim Webster wrote:
>>
>>>"Matt Giwer" <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Tz06e.26537$vd.2...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>Attempts to aggrandize otherwise mediocre persons to a gullible, superstitious, ignorant populace.
>>>>To create a sense of awe and wonder in the uneducated.
>>>>Tell me when I am getting close.
>>>when you can prove that the uneducated were literate in the ancient world
>>In the ancient world there was no such thing as silent reading. All written material was read by
>>speaking it aloud. Any reading would be heard by the slaves. Slaves of the rich would be educated
>>enough to do good work and have these read. Itinerant readers on street corners for coins telling
>>stories of the emperors. The rich having their servants entertain the masses as a public good.
> and you have evidence for the itinerant readers on street corners. let us
> have some of these citations of contemporary sources you are so keen on
I said entertainers, not readers. If you missed mention of people earning a living by entertaining
you have missed a lot. Again your reading ability is in question.
--
Hodie pridie Idus Apriles MMV est
-- The Ferric Webceasar
Jim Webster
also missed the evidence you provided as well
Jim Webster
Jim Webster
> Jim Webster wrote:
> > "Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:l2ql51h7m18ioeb1c...@4ax.com...
>
> >>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:15:56 +0100, in alt.archaeology, Jim Webster
wrote:
>
> >>>and you have evidence for the itinerant readers on street corners. let
us
> >>>have some of these citations of contemporary sources you are so keen on
>
> >>Best to killfile Giwer IMHO.
>
> > may be true, but remember, all that is needed to allow evil to flourish
is
> > for good men to do nothing
>
> Bible thumpers are good people? Since when?
I don't categorise people and distrust those who do, I merely deal with
individuals
Jim Webster
Kendall K. Down
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> wrote:
> >But entirely correct if you understand it - as I think everyone but you does
> >- as Israelite Period architecture.
> I'm not sure what you mean by this.
There is a style of building with stone known as "header and stretcher"
which is associated with the Israelite period. Obviously it is not possible
to pull the Haram wall apart to see whether it uses header and stretcher
stonework. However the appearance of the stones (from memory, roughly
smoothed face, narrow, crude rebates) is consistent with those used in the
Israelite period.
> However...
> Finkelstein & Silberman (page 128) "Moreover, for all their reported
> wealth and power, neither David nor Solomon is mentioned in a single known
> Egyptian or Mesopotamian text. And the archaeological evidence in
> Jerusalem for the famous building projects of Solomon is nonexistent."
I am aware of Finkelstein's views; I would place him at the opposite extreme
to someone like Albright who saw confirmation of the Bible in every
archaeological discovery. It is certainly true that David and Solomon are
not mentioned in texts, but the archaeological evidence is not as clear cut
as he implies. Not only has very little excavation taken place on Mt Ophel,
but what has been done shows that most of ancient Jerusalem was built on
artificial terraces (the 'Milo' of the Bible) where were substantially
destroyed by enemy action or by natural processes. Solomon's palace, if it
existed, is probably now in the rubble filling the Kidron Valley!
The absence of evidence, therefore, cannot, for good reasons, be taken as
evidence of absence.
> They go on to say that despite that, there may have been a David and a
> Solomon, but there is no evidence for David's conquests or his empire
Well, as a good Jew he would have to say that there was a David after all!
> "In the valleys Canaanite culture continues uninterrupted. In the
> highlands continuationof Iron I settlement system." As for Solomon, who
> was supposed to be also active at Meggido, Hazor and Gezer, "No sign of
> monumental architecture, or important city in Jerusalem. No sign of
> grand-scale building activity at Meggido, Hazor and Gezer; in the north,
> material culture continues."
Yadin disagrees, claiming to have found evidence for monumental gateways
datable to Solomon. Personally I am not entirely convinced by Yadin's
arguments, but nonetheless the point is that Finkelstein is not the ultimate
authority nor is his point of view the only one in existence.
Martin Edwards
>
> may be true, but remember, all that is needed to allow evil to flourish is
> for good men to do nothing
>
> Jim Webster
>
>
call G evil, but these are two separate issues. I don't know if he is
an antisemite. If he is, that is unfortunate, but does not invalidate
what he is putting forward here. Certainly your de haut en bas rhetoric
does not refute it.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx
Jim Webster
"Martin Edwards" <buzza...@fastmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d3h05u$qcc$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Jim Webster wrote:
> >
> > may be true, but remember, all that is needed to allow evil to flourish
is
> > for good men to do nothing
> >
> > Jim Webster
> >
> >
> What is evil in the present argument? As a Holocaust denier you could
> call G evil, but these are two separate issues. I don't know if he is
> an antisemite. If he is, that is unfortunate, but does not invalidate
> what he is putting forward here. Certainly your de haut en bas rhetoric
> does not refute it.
>
I was talking about him, not to him
Jim Webster
Bernardz
Your theory requires all archeological evidence in the region till about
300BCE is false. Good luck!
bernardz
Janos Kaldy wrote:
> Just curious what is the opinion on the temple mount?
>
> Is this book any good or is it just assumptions and apogetics?
2nd temple no problem. It existed.
The 1st one depends on whom you read. Some would say all we have are
assumptions others would say we have firm proof.
>
> Secrets of Jerusalem's Temple Mount
> by Leen Ritmeyer, Kathleen Ritmeyer
Dirk Collins
>>> In the ancient world there was no such thing as silent reading.
>>> All written material was read by speaking it aloud...
>
>
>> Only for a specific purpose. Private reading, private transcription,
>> and private writing were just as common. Uru, Assyrian, and Babylonian
>> merchants commonly kept cunieform tablets of their trade inventory.
>> Do you suppose they read those tablets aloud for just anyone to hear?
>
>
> I think they went some place private to read them as is casually
> stated in some Greek and Roman records. It was the only way so there is
> no specific mention of it simply passages do not make sense unless that
> were the case. Some Greek gets a private message and he retires to his
> quarters to read it so no one else will know what it says. Why?
>
> There is even one in the Gospels, Jesus writes in the dirt and "When
> they heard what he had written" only makes sense if the written word is
> spoken aloud.
>
> The distinction between read and read aloud only appears in the Dark
> Ages and makes sense in context whereas earlier mentions of retiring in
> private to read only makes sense if it was spoken aloud.
Retiring in private to read makes sense if you are a traveling
merchant and don't want the slaves and other merchants to figure
out whether you are losing or gaining money (or goods) trading. It
also makes sense so that the slaves and other merchants don't
figure out just how much money you are making, or how much trade
goods you are accumulating, especially if you split the caravan
from time-to-time and send the smaller caravans to and from
separate destinations.
>
> This is no secret. I first heard of it as a kid some 50 years ago.
Well, Hell. I have always thought that early peoples didn't read,
write, or speak, becuase they didn't need to in order to
successfully communicate. My conception revolve around that they
communicated everything necessary with pheremones, emotion, face
and body expressions, with their artwork, and by observing the
world around them much better than we do today.
Kind of like navigation you know? Now, we use magnetic and
electronic compasses, and GPS satellites, and all kinds of
expensive advanced gear that takes (in some cases) years to
design, build, then use. In ancient times, folks in the South
Pacific merely watched the patterns of the waves for a while. By
measuring the timing and the direction the wave sets originated
from (even when they were in open water with no land in sight),
they could determine a suitable course that would take them to any
number of nearby bodies of land. They didn't even bother to look
at the stars to try to figure out where they were, and where they
were going. This older method of navigation works just as well as
any modern navigation system, and some of the folks that grew up
in the Pacific still know how to navigate over open waters this way.
So too with reading by speaking aloud.
For one thing, ancient texts were not structured in the manner of
sentences and writing today if my research is correct. Given that,
even up until the time of the Greeks, there was no such thing as a
separate sentences to make reading easy. This was on account there
was no punctuation. The sentences were all run on. At least with
Phoenician and Egyptian based languages.
So uhh?... You telling me that all ancient peoples read the same
text, hieroglyphs, or logos differently, unless they were taught
how to read a specific text in a manner of oral recitation?
I don't buy that for a minute.
Take a blaze for example. A blaze is a mark that an explorer put
on a tree, or a rock, or on a hillside to help navigate the
wilderness countryside. One of the more impressive examples of a
blaze is ancient megalithic stone circles. With one of these
puppies, you only needed to know a couple of things;
1) That the alignment of some of the specific standing stones
could guide you to other megalithic circles and...
2) You needed to know approximately where the sun would rise on
the horizon on any given day, to keep your course through the
wilderness true to the next waypoint (Megalithic circle). Almost
every megalithic stone circle in existence has a marker for the
summer and winter equinox. Coincidence there? I doubt it.
At one time, a bit more than 9,000 years ago, you could travel
cross-country overland throughout most of Europe this way without
a map by simply reading silently.
Which brings another thing...
Written language can be traced back about 6,000 years or so, And
while it is true that spoken language goes back much further than
that, reading signs and other artwork, and writing such
silently... literacy... goes back much further than written
language, and is not always linked to speech.
I would agree that it is likely that Egyptian writings and
sub-languages... canannite (etc.) are likely read by speaking
aloud. Not so for many of the Indo-European languages though.
Re,
Dirk
Kendall K. Down
Bernardz <Berna...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> But this wall appears be to built much later then Solomon.
The western and southern parts are certainly Herodian. The straight joint,
however, indicates that the Herodian work is a later addition and, as I
said, the stones north of the straight joint are much older.
Kendall K. Down
Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> A single mention of this King Solomon outside the bible would be a first step.
Well, we have David. That any good?
> As there is no way to date an Israelite period save from bible myth, and the only two possible
> mentions of something with a name like Israel both refer to its complete destruction
Er - in case it hasn't occurred to your bigotted mind, something has to
exist in order for it to be completely destroyed. This contradicts a
previous statement of yours to the effect that "there is no such thing as
Israel".
> As Haram ordinarily means where the women and children and servants and guards lived
No it doesn't. Your ignorance extends to Arabic, I see. "Haram" simply means
"forbidden"; it is used of the area of the home where women are kept, but it
also refers to the area in Jerusalem which was forbidden to non-Muslims.
Kendall K. Down
Martin Edwards <buzza...@fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> What is evil in the present argument? As a Holocaust denier you could
> call G evil, but these are two separate issues. I don't know if he is
> an antisemite. If he is, that is unfortunate, but does not invalidate
> what he is putting forward here. Certainly your de haut en bas rhetoric
> does not refute it.
Matt's dogmatic assertion "there was no Israel" is ridiculous. It may be
correct to say that Israel was not as depicted in the Bible or that the
story of Exodus and Conquest is a myth (though I would disagree with both
propositions) but to say that there was no Israel is just plain stupid. Matt
himself admits that there are ancient documents referring to Israel's
destruction and you can't destroy something that doesn't exist.
What is evil is that Matt's position is not based on reason or on evidence
but on his opposition to Christianity. Some Christians are justly criticised
for pretending that archaeology provides unequivocal support for the Bible;
Matt is guilty of the opposite error.
Matt Giwer
>>Bernardz wrote:
>>>>>Maybe. Others disagree though.
>>>>Ken Down
As all of that is invention why would you consider it hard to invent? If you have physical evidence
it is other than invention please post it so we can discuss it.
> It is only since we started digging them up that we started to realize
> that they were all so similar. Its obviously a style of temple that has
> disappeared and its obviously not a Greek design.
As I said, what makes you think they disappeared immediately after being built? What makes you
think they were not thriving for the Maccabees to use as models?
> What we have to assume is that if the biblical writer wrote it 700 years
> after
You have to assume they vanished immediately after construction to claim it was 700 years after.
> 1) Either the biblical writer saw a similar working temple that did not
> change which very unlikely as the design would have changed many times
> during 700 years. Maintenance and repairs over a long period of time
> will change the building.
Even today churches, particularly Catholic ones, are built in imitation of Dark Ages and
Renaissance structures. Why would you consider it unlikely? Certainly bell towers would have
disappeared over the centuries.
So you make a false assumption of a rate of change which does not exist even in our fast changing
times.
> 2) The writer used an early account which would not be in Greek so their
> goes your theory about Greek being the earliest writing.
Which goes to your assumption of immediate disappearance after construction. Why would you assume
they were not thriving in the time of the Maccabees?
>>They were huge constructions, expensive. They likely stood for hundreds
>>of years.
> Building unless in use are quickly striped down by the locals for their
> own use and/or modified by the locals for a new use.
And that is why the Bascillia to Mary in Istanbul was originally a Temple to Venus. That is why the
Parthenon no longer exists.
You assume facts not in evidence in order to argue to your preconceived conclusion.
Even the Al Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount is likely built on the foundation of the Temple of
Astarte and from the descriptions of the nature themes of the interior may in fact be a conversion
of the still standing temple.
>>Some like the Parthenon are still around.
> It has been rebuilt many times.
That will be news to the Greeks.
>>>Check him out here.
>>>http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/
>> Check out the link marked nizkook in my sig.
> So you are saying that you did not say these things that they say you
> did. Why not deny that these quotes attributed to you are false and end
> the issue.
I said the Nizkooks are lying and anyone with even a modest knowledge of usenet knows it. If your
studied ignorance does not permit to to understand the usenet then it is clear why you believe so
many stupid things about the past.
In this particular case, you fail to note Yale the Whale pulled a gun on a witness in court and was
the subbie of Sara "Fat Broad" Salzman and their pictures in Domme/Sub regalia have been posted on
the internet.
--
The greater the ascendency of democracy the more important the
opinion of the man in the street and the less important
the opinion of the government.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3396
Matt Giwer
I presented no theory. I simply challenged you to back up your assumption everything is due to a
mythical person.
Egypt ruled the region for over 1000 years. Why would you ignore that?
--
How do Iraq's WMDs differ from Germany's gas chambers?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3404
Matt Giwer
> In message <YTM6e.39743$vd.3...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
> Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>A single mention of this King Solomon outside the bible would be a first step.
> Well, we have David. That any good?
It isn't Solomon. And you have only BT DW as there are several following letters missing. There are
pictures of it on the internet. Take a look.
>>As there is no way to date an Israelite period save from bible myth, and the only two possible
>>mentions of something with a name like Israel both refer to its complete destruction
> Er - in case it hasn't occurred to your bigotted mind, something has to
> exist in order for it to be completely destroyed. This contradicts a
> previous statement of yours to the effect that "there is no such thing as
> Israel".
As the first mention of total destruction comes from before the bible says Moses was born it is
obviously not refering to any biblical Israel. As the second shows the bible version of a battle is
false as it invented two kings. So it is not clear what is meant by Israel but it is certainly not
the Israel of the bible.
As I have ALWAYS said, the requirement is for BIBLICAL Israel, an Israel as _described_ in the
bible. Therefore the egyptian description cannot be of biblical Israel. The second shows the bible
is contrary to what is inscribed in stone and therefore not the Israel described in the bible.
>>As Haram ordinarily means where the women and children and servants and guards lived
> No it doesn't. Your ignorance extends to Arabic, I see. "Haram" simply means
> "forbidden"; it is used of the area of the home where women are kept, but it
> also refers to the area in Jerusalem which was forbidden to non-Muslims.
Meaning and usage are different things. It is not where the "women are kept." It is the private
part of the home to which outsiders are never invited.
As the Waqf runs daily tours of the Mosques and the grounds for all comers of all religions it is
unclear why "forbidden" would be applied to anything there.
--
Considering the Pvt. Lynch story was a fraud the US has
not conducted one successful hostage rescue in Iraq.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3407
Matt Giwer
>>Jim Webster wrote:
> wrote:
And here I am dealing with people who argue towards a bible conclusion.
If there were no bible, no one would be searching for any "missing civilization" in bibleland. This
issue is bible thumpers trying to argue easily explanable finds into evidence of their bible beliefs.
--
Adherence to Israel by Americans is treason.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3416
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml
Matt Giwer
> In message <d3h05u$qcc$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>
> Martin Edwards <buzza...@fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>What is evil in the present argument? As a Holocaust denier you could
>>call G evil, but these are two separate issues. I don't know if he is
>>an antisemite. If he is, that is unfortunate, but does not invalidate
>>what he is putting forward here. Certainly your de haut en bas rhetoric
>>does not refute it.
> Matt's dogmatic assertion "there was no Israel" is ridiculous.
My dear illiterate fool. I have not said that.
I have only said there is no physical evidence for a biblical Israel.
You bible thumpers have yet to produce physical evidence of a biblical Israel.
>It may be
> correct to say that Israel was not as depicted in the Bible or that the
> story of Exodus and Conquest is a myth (though I would disagree with both
> propositions) but to say that there was no Israel is just plain stupid. Matt
> himself admits that there are ancient documents referring to Israel's
> destruction and you can't destroy something that doesn't exist.
If you agree on those points you agree there was no biblical Israel. I am surprised you agree that
which is destroyed can exist after its destruction.
> What is evil is that Matt's position is not based on reason or on evidence
> but on his opposition to Christianity. Some Christians are justly criticised
> for pretending that archaeology provides unequivocal support for the Bible;
> Matt is guilty of the opposite error.
When you produce physical evidence of Biblical Israel you will have a case to present. I merely
observe you have no physical evidence in support of your beliefs. Why do you want to believe?
--
This summer 9000 squatters will finally make Aliyah to Israel.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3392
Matt Giwer
> Just curious what is the opinion on the temple mount?
> Is this book any good or is it just assumptions and apogetics?
> Secrets of Jerusalem's Temple Mount
> by Leen Ritmeyer, Kathleen Ritmeyer
The surviving descriptions of Herod's temple indicate it could not have been on what is today
called the temple mount. It was most likely the location of the Temple of Astarte and the Antonine
fort.
--
When you hear mention of scholars always think of National
Merit scholars to keep things in perspective.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3415
Bernardz
webm...@diggingsonline.com says...
> In message <MPG.1cc6411c48f92d4e989cc1@news>
> Bernardz <Berna...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But this wall appears be to built much later then Solomon.
>
> The western and southern parts are certainly Herodian. The straight joint,
> however, indicates that the Herodian work is a later addition and, as I
> said, the stones north of the straight joint are much older.
>
> Ken Down
>
>
Interesting.
Do you have a reference book for this or a URL?
Bernardz
ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com says...
> Bernardz wrote:
> >> A single mention of this King Solomon outside the bible would be a first step.
>
> > Your theory requires all archeological evidence in the region till about
> > 300BCE is false. Good luck!
>
> I presented no theory.
So what are you saying?
> I simply challenged you to back up your assumption everything is due to a
> mythical person.
A lie! When did I say that?
>
> Egypt ruled the region for over 1000 years. Why would you ignore that?
>
So what!
Archeological evidence shows that Egyptian influence in the region does
not seem to be all encompassing. A typical situation at the frontiers of
an empire. Also any reader of the bible would see that the Judahite
kings allied themselves with the Egyptians
Bernardz
(a)
> > Not enough. Its not enough to give the bible writer much of his details
> > eg the wood, the height, the cherubim and the internal design.
>
> As all of that is invention why would you consider it hard to invent? If you have physical evidence
> it is other than invention please post it so we can discuss it.
When did I said anything about the ancient Jews making an invention.
What I stated is (a). Your foundations and partial columns would show
nothing about (a). Yet the biblical writer knew about it. How?
>
> > It is only since we started digging them up that we started to realize
> > that they were all so similar. Its obviously a style of temple that has
> > disappeared and its obviously not a Greek design.
>
> As I said, what makes you think they disappeared immediately after being built? What makes you
> think they were not thriving for the Maccabees to use as models?
(b)
Because over 700 years they would have been totally rebuilt. What the
Maccabees would have had was a Greek temple not a Canaanite temple!
>
> > What we have to assume is that if the biblical writer wrote it 700 years
> > after
>
> You have to assume they vanished immediately after construction to claim it was 700 years after.
see (b) above
>
> > 1) Either the biblical writer saw a similar working temple that did not
> > change which very unlikely as the design would have changed many times
> > during 700 years. Maintenance and repairs over a long period of time
> > will change the building.
>
> Even today churches, particularly Catholic ones, are built in imitation of Dark Ages and
> Renaissance structures. Why would you consider it unlikely? Certainly bell towers would have
> disappeared over the centuries.
>
> So you make a false assumption of a rate of change which does not exist even in our fast changing
> times.
The only reason this can happen as some records existed. See (2) below
for the problem then with your theory.
(2)
> > 2) The writer used an early account which would not be in Greek so their
> > goes your theory about Greek being the earliest writing.
>
> Which goes to your assumption of immediate disappearance after construction. Why would you assume
> they were not thriving in the time of the Maccabees?
See (2) and (b) above
>
> >>They were huge constructions, expensive. They likely stood for hundreds
> >>of years.
>
> > Building unless in use are quickly striped down by the locals for their
> > own use and/or modified by the locals for a new use.
>
> And that is why the Bascillia to Mary in Istanbul was originally a Temple to Venus. That is why the
> Parthenon no longer exists.
>
> You assume facts not in evidence in order to argue to your preconceived conclusion.
>
> Even the Al Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount is likely built on the foundation of the Temple of
> Astarte and from the descriptions of the nature themes of the interior may in fact be a conversion
> of the still standing temple.
Even assuming this is correct your theory runs into problems for the
same reasons as above.
You have also another problem the inside of the Temple of Astarte would
be quite different to that of the Al Aqsa mosque. So we are back to (2)
and (b) above.
>
> >>Some like the Parthenon are still around.
>
> > It has been rebuilt many times.
>
> That will be news to the Greeks.
No to you. Check the history of the building.
>
> >>>Check him out here.
> >>>http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/
>
> >> Check out the link marked nizkook in my sig.
>
> > So you are saying that you did not say these things that they say you
> > did. Why not deny that these quotes attributed to you are false and end
> > the issue.
>
> I said the Nizkooks are lying and anyone with even a modest knowledge of usenet knows it. If your
> studied ignorance does not permit to to understand the usenet then it is clear why you believe so
> many stupid things about the past.
>
> In this particular case, you fail to note Yale the Whale pulled a gun on a witness in court and was
> the subbie of Sara "Fat Broad" Salzman and their pictures in Domme/Sub regalia have been posted on
> the internet.
Irrelevant!
You can deny things that you did not say eg if someone said that I said
that holocaust did not happen, I would say that I don't remember saying
that and if I did say it I withdraw it as the statement is wrong and
Holocaust did happen.
No comment huh. It seems like a fair offer to me. If you are so sure why
not take them up. It will cost you nothing.
Jim Webster
> Bernardz wrote:
> >> A single mention of this King Solomon outside the bible would be a
first step.
>
> > Your theory requires all archeological evidence in the region till about
> > 300BCE is false. Good luck!
>
> I presented no theory. I simply challenged you to back up your assumption
everything is due to a
> mythical person.
>
> Egypt ruled the region for over 1000 years. Why would you ignore that?
>
claimed he won the battle of Kadesh, one should be careful about these
claims, treat them as you would if they were made in the OT
Jim Webster
Jim Webster
> Jim Webster wrote:
> > "Matt Giwer" <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:OfN6e.38995$Pc.2...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> >>Jim Webster wrote:
>
> >>>"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>news:l2ql51h7m18ioeb1c...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:15:56 +0100, in alt.archaeology, Jim Webster
>
> > wrote:
>
> >>>>>and you have evidence for the itinerant readers on street corners.
let us
> >>>>>have some of these citations of contemporary sources you are so keen
on
>
> >>>>Best to killfile Giwer IMHO.
>
> >>>may be true, but remember, all that is needed to allow evil to flourish
is
> >>>for good men to do nothing
>
> >>Bible thumpers are good people? Since when?
>
> > I don't categorise people and distrust those who do, I merely deal with
> > individuals
>
> And here I am dealing with people who argue towards a bible conclusion.
>
> If there were no bible, no one would be searching for any "missing
civilization" in bibleland. This
> issue is bible thumpers trying to argue easily explanable finds into
evidence of their bible beliefs.
and immediately you prepackage a group for easy disposal as opposed to
having the messy problem of real individuals
Jim Webster
April Hurst
I've been reading these threads for awhile and notice that you deny the
existence of a Biblical Israel. Which, given how little definitive
archaelogical evidence has surfaced, sounds reasonable, except that I get
the impression that anything that implies that there might be a some truth
in the Old Testament is immediately discounted as a hoax, misinterpretation,
or something similar. Myths rarely come up out of the blue, and even if one
takes the OT as nothing more than an ancient text containing important
literature of a region, it's likely to be a mix of truth and falsehood. Are
you saying that Biblical Israel is completely made-up, or that its
events/people are inaccurately presented and adulterated? The latter makes
sense.
Kendall K. Down
"April Hurst" <april...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Myths rarely come up out of the blue, and even if one
> takes the OT as nothing more than an ancient text containing important
> literature of a region, it's likely to be a mix of truth and falsehood.
That is the position I would adopt - tending more towards the truth than the
falsehood if you are talking about a spectrum of opinion.
> Are
> you saying that Biblical Israel is completely made-up, or that its
> events/people are inaccurately presented and adulterated? The latter makes
> sense.
That does appear to be Matt's position, though I note that he has hastily
modified it in his latest post, caught by the trap of his own words. You
can't destroy something which does not exist!
Kendall K. Down
Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> It isn't Solomon. And you have only BT DW as there are several following letters missing. There are
> pictures of it on the internet. Take a look.
I don't need to. I've seen the actual thing in Jerusalem and have a
photograph to prove it.
> As the first mention of total destruction comes from before the bible says Moses was born it is
> obviously not refering to any biblical Israel. As the second shows the bible version of a battle is
> false as it invented two kings. So it is not clear what is meant by Israel but it is certainly not
> the Israel of the bible.
Perhaps you had better tell us what these two documents are. I thought you
were referring to the Merneptah Stele for one of them.
> As the Waqf runs daily tours of the Mosques and the grounds for all comers of all religions it is
> unclear why "forbidden" would be applied to anything there.
I gave you the explanation in my reply. In any case, "Haram" is the name
given to the Temple Mount. (Incidentally, our guide in Egypt lives in "Gizeh
Haram" and as she doesn't camp under a pyramid, I presume the word has a
secondary meaning such as "area" or even "district".)
Kendall K. Down
"Jim Webster" <J...@zerospam.mok.net> wrote:
> Egypt claimed to rule the region for a considerable period. But Pharoah also
> claimed he won the battle of Kadesh, one should be careful about these
> claims, treat them as you would if they were made in the OT
The claim is backed up by physical evidence: for example, a stele in the
Rockerfeller Museum, Jerusalem, recording the presence of an Egyptian
governor in Beth Shan.
Kendall K. Down
Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> The surviving descriptions of Herod's temple indicate it could not have been on what is today
> called the temple mount. It was most likely the location of the Temple of Astarte and the Antonine
> fort.
They indicate no such thing - and where is the evidence for this temple of
Astarte to which you keep referring?
Kendall K. Down
Bernardz <Berna...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting.
> Do you have a reference book for this or a URL?
I got it from "Royal Cities" or possibly "The Royal Cities of Israel" by
Kathleen Kenyon.
Jim Webster
"Kendall K. Down" <webm...@diggingsonline.com> wrote in message
news:d03f0e5b4...@diggingsonline.com...
> In message <d3j227$df2$3...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>
> "Jim Webster" <J...@zerospam.mok.net> wrote:
>
> > Egypt claimed to rule the region for a considerable period. But Pharoah
also
> > claimed he won the battle of Kadesh, one should be careful about these
> > claims, treat them as you would if they were made in the OT
>
> The claim is backed up by physical evidence: for example, a stele in the
> Rockerfeller Museum, Jerusalem, recording the presence of an Egyptian
> governor in Beth Shan.
of course. I was not doubting that at times the Egyptians did control parts
of Syria, we have a lot of the letters pleading for assistance as the
Egyptian empire started to unwind, it was just the comment
"Egypt ruled the region for over 1000 years. Why would you ignore that?"
which I felt needed commenting on
Jim Webster
Matt Giwer
> In article <JY37e.60628$Fz.4...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com says...
>>Bernardz wrote:
>>>> A single mention of this King Solomon outside the bible would be a first step.
>>>Your theory requires all archeological evidence in the region till about
>>>300BCE is false. Good luck!
>> I presented no theory.
> So what are you saying?
I observed the absense of evidence for bible stories. That is a fact not a theory.
>>I simply challenged you to back up your assumption everything is due to a
>>mythical person.
> A lie! When did I say that?
Mythical Israelites then. Whatever.
>> Egypt ruled the region for over 1000 years. Why would you ignore that?
> So what!
> Archeological evidence shows that Egyptian influence in the region does
> not seem to be all encompassing. A typical situation at the frontiers of
> an empire. Also any reader of the bible would see that the Judahite
> kings allied themselves with the Egyptians
Egypt ruled up to the Euphrates River. This region cannot be characterized as the frontier.
If there were any "judahite" kings they were centuries after Egypt was kicked back to the Nile.
Again the writers were not familiar with the history of the region and could not have been conemporary.
--
Considering the Pvt. Lynch story was a fraud the US has
not conducted one successful hostage rescue in Iraq.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3407
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml
Matt Giwer
> In message <bf47e.60735$Fz.5...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
> Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>It isn't Solomon. And you have only BT DW as there are several following letters missing. There are
>>pictures of it on the internet. Take a look.
> I don't need to. I've seen the actual thing in Jerusalem and have a
> photograph to prove it.
Good. Then you know DWD is wishful thinking. You also know the translation of BT follows the person
name. If a king, BT is a palace, if a god BT is a temple and so forth. It explains the origin of the
term 'house of God'. You also know it always refers to a building without exception. As it always
refers to a building it cannot refer to a 'dynasty' in the medieval sense of house(hold) which today
only applies in British English not not in American English.
>>As the first mention of total destruction comes from before the bible says Moses was born it is
>>obviously not refering to any biblical Israel. As the second shows the bible version of a battle is
>>false as it invented two kings. So it is not clear what is meant by Israel but it is certainly not
>>the Israel of the bible.
> Perhaps you had better tell us what these two documents are. I thought you
> were referring to the Merneptah Stele for one of them.
The Merneptah Stele says the battle was against the son of Omri without naming him. The OT says the
greatgrandson of Omri was in the fight. It is a matter of true believers matching stories without
concern for details. As what is cast in stone is the correct version the OT story is clearly the
later invention by someone unfamiliar with local history. As it could have been anyone after the
fact I again point to the Greek Septuagint as the original.
>>As the Waqf runs daily tours of the Mosques and the grounds for all comers of all religions it is
>>unclear why "forbidden" would be applied to anything there.
> I gave you the explanation in my reply. In any case, "Haram" is the name
> given to the Temple Mount. (Incidentally, our guide in Egypt lives in "Gizeh
> Haram" and as she doesn't camp under a pyramid, I presume the word has a
> secondary meaning such as "area" or even "district".)
Obviously it has other meanings.
--
Anyone who reads www.haaretz.com for a week will
know why the world hates Israel.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3398
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org
Matt Giwer
> "Matt Giwer" <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:vr47e.60808$Fz.5...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>When you produce physical evidence of Biblical Israel you will have a case to present. I merely
>>observe you have no physical evidence in support of your beliefs. Why do you want to believe?
> I've been reading these threads for awhile and notice that you deny the
> existence of a Biblical Israel. Which, given how little definitive
> archaelogical evidence has surfaced, sounds reasonable,
How can it "sound reasonable" when I have never said that. I have pointed out the absense of
physical evidence and that is all. I object to people making assertions without physical evidence.
> except that I get
> the impression that anything that implies that there might be a some truth
> in the Old Testament is immediately discounted as a hoax, misinterpretation,
> or something similar. Myths rarely come up out of the blue,
Atlantis, alien abduction, Chupacabra, Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, Witches and witchcraft, Bermuda
Triangle, Velikovsky, creationism, vampires, werewolves, people rising from the dead including Jesus
among many. Psychic powers, seances, ghosts, poltergeists and many, many others I don't have the
time to list.
Rather than rarely, it seems the most common thing in the world. Where did you get the idea it is
rare?
> and even if one
> takes the OT as nothing more than an ancient text containing important
> literature of a region, it's likely to be a mix of truth and falsehood.
I have said there is no evidence it is any older than the Greek Septuagint, 3rd century BC.
> Are
> you saying that Biblical Israel is completely made-up, or that its
> events/people are inaccurately presented and adulterated? The latter makes
> sense.
I have said there is no evidence for any Israel as described in the bible therefore there is no way
to use the term "biblical israel" until there is physical evidence of it.
--
Jesus did not condemn slavery. Enough said.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3393
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml
Matt Giwer
> In message <0x47e.41162$Pc.4...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
> Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>The surviving descriptions of Herod's temple indicate it could not have been on what is today
>>called the temple mount. It was most likely the location of the Temple of Astarte and the Antonine
>>fort.
> They indicate no such thing -
Following this is a rather long article. It is not mine. Writing my own is still on my TODO list.
Note the seven items at the end as a summary. The simplest clincher is mention of running water in
the temple and there is none and never was where the mosques are today. Therefore the temple could
not have been there. The only remaining discussion is where it was as we know for certain at least
one place where it was not. OR all the surviving descriptions of water cleaning out the sacrificial
room and such are false.
My article will include the known worship of Astarte into the 2nd c AD in Jerusalem and the
observation if Yahweh's temple were higher people could look down on their high priests performing
worship ceremonies with Astarte's temple prostitutes. I tend to be a bit more practical in
exposition than the professionals. My article will also exclude mention of Solomon and point out his
existence as well as his temple as well as a civilization which could have built such a structure is
without physical evidence.
> and where is the evidence for this temple of Astarte to which you keep referring?
This is also touched on in the following. References to it are piously translated for the masses as
Strato's Tower, BT STRT, house of Astoroth, Ishtar, Astarte and Ester of the book thereof if you wish.
==========
Temple Update: New Discovery
by Chuck Missler
Each year, the Jerusalem Temple Conference proves to be one of the best
ways to keep up-to-date on the progress being made in preparing to rebuild
the coming Temple.
Precise Location?
One of the controversies involves the actual location of the original First
and Second Temples. The traditional site, of course, is the Dome of Rock,
the prominent Muslim shrine which dominates the Temple Mount. Most of the
rabbis in Israel take this site for granted.
Many have become aware of Dr. Asher Kaufman's research, which deals with
the possibility that the Temples may have stood about 100 meters to the
north of the Dome of the Rock.
Perhaps the most provocative conjecture has emerged from Tuvia Sagiv's
studies which suggest a location to the south of the Dome of the Rock.
(Each of these views have been previously presented in our newsletters,
briefing packages, and the publications from the previous
Conferences.)[44]1
Infrared Fly-by
The most interesting session at the Fourth Annual Jerusalem Temple
Conference was, again, Tuvia Sagiv's presentation. Tuvia first reviewed a
number of the traditional view's questionable aspects which emerge from 3-D
computer studies, including elevation problems conflicting with ancient
records citing both Agrippa's and Titus' apparent ability to view the
Azarah, the water aqueduct implications, etc. He then showed us infrared
photography, taken only two weeks earlier on a fly-by over the Dome of the
Rock.
Since the differential rates of cooling can often reveal subterranean
structures, these techniques can be quite revealing under the right
conditions.
The heat-sensitive photography reveals a pentagonal structure underlying
the present Dome. This pentagonal structure may have been Strato's Tower,
part of the Antonia Fortress. A similar pentagonal structure, also called
Strato's Tower, was part of the Roman buildings at Caesarea, on Israel's
Mediterranean coast.[45]2
Aristobulus I, King of Judea 104-103 b.c., had his brother Antigonus
murdered in a subterranean passage to Strato's Tower, which was between the
Temple and the Antonia Fortress proper.[46]3 This would seem to indicate
that the rock outcropping presently covered by the famed Dome of the Rock
was actually part of the Antonia Fortress, not the Temple. This makes much
more sense since this also would place the fosse (moat) north of the
Antonia rather than between the Antonia and the Temple.
Jerusalem was always vulnerable from the north, as it is protected by
valleys on the east, south, and west. The ancient records also indicate
that the Antonia was directly adjacent to the Temple precincts. It all
seems to make sense.
Conclusion
Only real access to the mount and careful archaeological exploration will
resolve these controversies. And the volatile political situation renders
speculation pointless. Since Moshe Dayan--in his own "land for peace"
deal--granted control of the Temple Mount to the Muslim WAQF, it will take
some major changes to even permit serious investigations to take place, let
alone any rebuilding dreams.
But we do know that the Temple will be rebuilt. Paul, John, and our
Lord all make reference to the Temple in events immediately preceding
Christ's Second Coming.[47]4 And the preparations have begun. The
major components are moving into place for the final countdown. Have
you done your homework?
Where was the Temple of Herod?
Utah State University anthropologist says Dome of the Rock is not location
of Herod's Temple.
Utah State University
Some time ago a conversation with a colleague about the absence of
archaeological information on the Temple Mount or, as it is called in
Arabic, the Haram al-Sharif, and the unlikelihood that permission will be
granted for a thorough archaeological investigation of the area in the near
future led me to wonder whether it might be possible to learn enough from
ancient sources to at least make an educated guess about where within the
Haram the Jewish Temple is likelihood. My goal was to see if a "virtual
archaeology" could be constructed with sufficient detail that one might
give good advice about where to begin excavating, were an archaeologist
given permission to do so.
One of the first things I discovered was that archaeologists' speculations
about the original site of the Temple were not typically based on the hard
evidences that one usually associates with archaeology. Perhaps because of
the relative lack of hard, artifactual evidences or perhaps because the
topic has strong religious significance even to archaeologists who are
interested in biblical times, arguments for various placements of the
Temple are often grounded more in symbolism than on pragmatic evidences.
Articles on the topic often rely heavily on judgments such as "The
location of the Dome of the Rock, being the highest spot within the Haram,
was the most appropriate place for the Jews to have built the Temple of
their God" or assumptions such as the idea that the Temple surely must have
been built in the middle of the sacred, walled precinct (Solomon's five
hundred cubit, walled square that surrounded the Temple) that surrounded
it-the middle assumedly being more appropriate than some less symmetrical
placement. But as any anthropologist knows, what seems symbolically
"appropriate" in one culture may not be in another, and symbolic ideals
frequently take a second seat to practical considerations that must be
dealt with when erecting any large piece of architecture. My goal was to
avoid such symbolic second guessing about what the Jews of antiquity might
or might not have found aesthetically or symbolically appropriate, and to
stick to what hard evidence might be found.
To my surprise, I did discover one voice crying in the wilderness of
symbolism for a more practical, hard-evidence approach to the question, and
I must give him credit at the outset for most of what I will present, since
I have only added a bit to the basic arguments that he had already
proposed. Tuvia Sagiv is an Israeli architect, and it is perhaps because of
his lack of credentials as an archaeologist that his more pragmatically
minded approach to the question has failed to reach the venues that are
usually read by those interested in biblical archaeology. On the other
hand, Mr. Sagiv's training as an architect predisposed him to look at
questions about the placement of the Temple from the practical mind-set
that his profession requires. I will present his basic arguments here along
with my own, small additions (mainly, point 6, below) which, I believe,
strengthens his argument somewhat. Background
Mount Moriah is actually a north-south trending ridge rather than a
mountain peak. It rises from its southern end near the entrance to David's
City just north of the Hinnom Valley and gets progressively higher until it
reaches the spot where the Dome of the Rock now stands. The rock that is
sheltered by the dome is bedrock that simply rises above the surface about
this point. It stands about five feet higher than the surrounding surface.
North of this, the ground was relatively level, although it actually dipped
slightly before rising again where the Moriah ridge narrows just south of
Mount Bezetha.
What people currently think of as the Temple Mount is a roughly
rectangular area on the ridge. This rectangular court is bounded by walls
that were built in relatively recent times on the ruins of earlier walls.
The ruins include both Herodian and Hasmonean masonry.
It is generally recognized that the eastern wall of the current courtyard
occupies the same location on which Solomon built a retaining wall to level
the area east of the First Temple. This feature is called Solomon's Porch
and included a roofed colonnade. Solomon did not otherwise modify the
north-trending ridge of Mount Moriah. Herod extended Solomon's Porch to the
north and south when he "doubled" the size of the Temple Mount. The
entrance to Solomon's Temple Mount courtyards was through gates that rested
directly on the ridge itself.
The Hasmoneans made an addition to the south of Solomon's Porch and
created an east-west retaining wall along the southern extremity of their
extension to create a larger, level courtyard to the south of the Temple.
This retaining wall was higher than the original southern gates (the Hulda
Gates), so that they thereafter connected to the floor of the courtyard by
underground passages. Herod more than doubled the size of the Temple Mount
courtyards by extending the eastern wall again, both to the south and the
north, and by adding similar retaining walls on the east and north ends of
the rectangle. He built his great Stoa (where the Sanhedrin met and where
sacrificial animals were sold--the scene of Jesus' overturning of the
moneychangers' tables) on his southern extension. Hadrian may have made
additions to the walls of the Temple Mount as part of his building program
in AD 135+, but the specifics are difficult to document.
What Was Within the Walled Precinct?
The Temple Mount contained more than just the Temple. In Solomon's day, it
already contained several other features: Solomon's palace (to the south of
the Temple), a hall of justice (called the Forest of Lebanon) and other
administrative buildings (possibly to the west of the Temple). The northern
wall included the Tadi Gate (through which sheep were brought to the
Temple), a Prison Gate (which led into a prison), and a defensive tower
called Hananeel (at the northwest corner). Just beyond the northern wall
outside the northwest corner was a fosse or waterless moat that cut across
the ridge at a narrow point. Hananeel Tower and the fosse formed an
important military defense structure, since the northern route down the
Moriah ridge was the easiest invasion route for foreign armies, which is
why the Romans invaded from that point when they took the Temple in AD
70.). Moriah also contained a "high place" where Astoreth had been
worshipped from ancient times.
In Herodian times, the site of Ashtereth's high place was dominated by an
eight-sided tower called Strato's Tower (the name being a corruption of
Astoreth, which was written as STRT in the unpointed Hebrew of the time).
We know from Josephus that Strato's Tower lay to the north of the Temple
and south of Baris. Later, a military fortress and tower, called the Akra,
was built to the south of the Temple Mount by Antiochus after he destroyed
the walls of the Temple. The Akra, a military installation, was offensive
to the Jews because it afforded a view into the Temple area. It was
therefore destroyed by Simon in the later Hasmonean period.
When the First Temple was rebuilt after the Babylonian captivity,
Solomon's palace and the Forest of Lebanon were razed and the ground was
leveled where they had stood. The stone was used in rebuilding the Temple
and its walls.
From the above, we can see that in Herodian times the Temple Mount had two
basic precincts, one sacred (the Temple and its courts) and one secular
(the pagan high place of Strato's Tower and the defensive fortress to its
north. The latter occupied the northwest quadrant of the Temple Mount,
leaving the sacred area as an irregular shape that occupied the three other
quadrants.
The Temple precinct
The Temple area had two major components, the so-called Court of the
Gentiles that surrounded it and a sacred platform on which the Temple
rested along with the walled Women's Court, Court of Israel, and Priest's
Court. This Temple precinct was originally 500 cubits square and occupied
only part of the Herodian Temple precinct, although it too was missing a
notch in its northwestern corner where the pagan site of Asteroth lay.
Josephus cites an old prophesy that if the Jews ever "squared the Temple",
it would be destroyed, and he asserts that doing so was the cause of the
Roman destruction of Jerusalem. That is, Herod razed Strato's Tower and the
old Baris fortress and built a new Baris (Baris Antonia) on the northeast
corner of his enlarged Temple Mount. This made a nice, square sacred area
around the Temple platform but violated God's injunction by incorporating
the idolatrous site of pagan worship into its design.
Where Was the Temple?
The Temple was not located on the high spot currently occupied by the Dome
of the Rock. The Dome was built on the most imposing location, the
situation of the former Strato's Tower, a pagan place of worship. It
incorporated the eight-sided design of Astoreth's place of worship into its
architecture, a feature of the Dome that is unique in Islamic architecture.
The actual location of the Temple was to the south of the Dome of the Rock
at the approximate location of the Al Kas fountain which is north of the
current location of the El Aksa mosque at the south end of the current
Temple Mount. This places the Temple directly to the west of the Western
Wall (a.k.a. Wailing Wall).
Reasons for This Placement
The evidences for the southern placement are as follows:
(1) Baris Antonia was built to defend Mount Moriah against invasion from
the north--the only easy route to the Temple. The east and west slopes were
steep and the city lay to the south. The most defensible place for the
location of the fortress was just south of the narrow constriction between
the ravines that ran into the Kidron Valley on the east and the Valley of
the Cheesemakers on the west. In fact, these two ridges were joined at the
top by a man-made moat which would have made an attack on the Baris even
more difficult. (The moat was noted in Wilson's survey of Jerusalem, so its
position is known.) This is the arrangement described by Josephus. Had the
Temple been located on the Sakhra (the Rock), then there would have been
insufficient room for both Strato's Tower and the Baris to have fit between
the Temple and the Moat. The northern placement favored by the Temple Mount
Faithful leaves no room for even the defensive tower, Baris, to be situated
between the Temple and the fosse.
(2). A Dome of the Rock location for the Temple would have made it
impossible to supply running water to the Temple, a necessity for the High
Priest's mikvah and for the cleansing of blood from the Temple platform.
According to the Mishnah, the way that blood was washed from the floor of
the Priest's Court where sacrifices were performed was to open the
floodgate of the aqueduct directly into the court . This means that the
aqueduct that brought water to the Temple Mount had to have been above the
level of the raised floor of the court. In fact, part of the aqueduct is
still in existence, and it lies over 20 meters below the level that it
would have to have occupied to service a Temple at the level of the Dome of
the Rock. The proposed northern placement is also too high to have received
water from the aqueduct. In fact, remains of the aqueduct itself show that
after entering the Temple Mount across Wilson's Arch, it turned to the
southeast towards the Al Kas fountain and its associated cisterns. The
Moriah ridge at this location is low enough that the aqueduct could have
served the Temple as described by the Mishnah at this location south of the
Dome of the Rock.
(3) Josephus says that the hill to the north of the Temple (Bizita Hill)
obscured the view of the Temple from the north. If the Temple had rested on
the Sakhra, they it would have been so high that the view from the north
would not have been obscured. In fact, it would have been visible from as
far away as Ramallah.
(4) According to Josephus, King Herod Agrippa built a dining room in his
Hasmonean Palace from which he and his guests could watch the sacrifices at
the Altar. That palace was located near the Citadel at the Jaffa Gate on
Mount Zion to the west of the Temple Mount, and the Temple itself would
have blocked its view of the Azarah if the Temple had sat atop the Dome of
the Rock site. No buildings existed in that era that were high enough to
have made the view possible. However, a placement of the Temple at the Al
Kas fountain location to the south of the Dome, being over 20 meters lower
makes a straight-line view of the Azarah possible along a line of site
between the Temple and the southern wall of the Temple.
(5) The Mishnah says that the Temple was not at the highest spot, but
that it resided "between the shoulders"--that is between the Rock to
its north and the small hill on which the Selucid fortress Akra was
built to the south of the Temple.
(6) A southern placement with the Holy of Holies just northeast of the Al
Kas fountain is the only one that allows there to be an underground cistern
under the Laver in which the priests washed their hands and feet each
morning and under each of the parts of the Temple in which there was
amikvah (with the exception of the mikvah used by the High Priest on the
Day of Atonement, which was in a second-floor room and supplied with
flowing water from the aqueduct). thereby allowing water to be directly
accessible for each of the mikvah sites. No other placement I know of
associates water sources with the various mikvahs and the Laver.
(7) After Hadrian destroyed the Temple in AD 135, he built a temple to
Jupiter on the site. The standard pattern for such temples, as exemplified
at Baalbek, was an entry through an octagonal portico, a plaza with an
altar, and the temple proper. The Baalbek temple's walls surround a double
row of pillars. So do the walls of the contemporary El Aksa Mosque on the
south end of the modern Temple Mount rectangle. This construction, like
the octagonal shape of the Dome of the Rock, is unique within Islamic
architecture. If the Baalbek temple plans are superimposed on the Haram
with the temple situated where the El Aqsa Mosque is and the octagonal
portico where the octagonal Dome of the Rock is situated today, then
Herod's Temple would have been situated within the plaza, under the Roman
altar where sacrifices were performed to Jupiter--a perfect way of making
the Temple location inaccessible to the Jews. The Mishnah describes the
Holy of Holies as having been located where the statue of Hadrian was in
the plaza, just west of the altar to Jupiter.
--
Israelis are so dumb it took them thirty years to realize destroying
the homes of the parents of suspects is counter-productive.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3391
Jim Webster
>
> The Merneptah Stele says the battle was against the son of Omri without
naming him. The OT says the
> greatgrandson of Omri was in the fight.
so you admit the existance of Omri?
Jim Webster
Jim Webster
> Kendall K. Down wrote:
> > In message <0x47e.41162$Pc.4...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
> > Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >>The surviving descriptions of Herod's temple indicate it could not have
been on what is today
> >>called the temple mount. It was most likely the location of the Temple
of Astarte and the Antonine
> >>fort.
>
> > They indicate no such thing -
>
> Following this is a rather long article. It is not mine. Writing my own is
still on my TODO list.
> Note the seven items at the end as a summary. The simplest clincher is
mention of running water in
> the temple and there is none and never was where the mosques are today.
and the evidence for this? or do you merely mean that there is no running
water there now
Jim Webster
Martin Edwards
there at the time? The answer is, of course, by aqueducts, but none
have been found just there.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx
Jim Webster
"Martin Edwards" <buzza...@fastmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d3nu7o$m6g$2...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Jim Webster wrote:
> > and the evidence for this? or do you merely mean that there is no
running
> > water there now
> >
> > Jim Webster
> >
> >
> That may well be what he means. How would the running water have got
> there at the time? The answer is, of course, by aqueducts, but none
> have been found just there.
>
the acropolis of Athens had water from springs in the rock itself
Jim Webster
Kendall K. Down
Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> Good. Then you know DWD is wishful thinking. You also know the translation of BT follows the person
> name. If a king, BT is a palace, if a god BT is a temple and so forth. It explains the origin of the
> term 'house of God'. You also know it always refers to a building without exception. As it always
> refers to a building it cannot refer to a 'dynasty' in the medieval sense of house(hold) which today
> only applies in British English not not in American English.
I know no such thing.
> The Merneptah Stele says the battle was against the son of Omri without naming him. The OT says the
> greatgrandson of Omri was in the fight. It is a matter of true believers matching stories without
> concern for details. As what is cast in stone is the correct version the OT story is clearly the
> later invention by someone unfamiliar with local history. As it could have been anyone after the
> fact I again point to the Greek Septuagint as the original.
Clearly your ignorance is only matched by your bigotry and prejudice. The
Merneptah Stele says none of those things. Why don't you go away and do some
study of ancient history and then your opinions might carry some weight.
As for your touching faith that "what is cast in stone is the correct
version", I presume you have never heard of Rameses II and the Battle of
Kadesh?
Kendall K. Down
Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> My article will include the known worship of Astarte into the 2nd c AD in Jerusalem
I have never heard of any such thing and given the level of your historical
knowledge I am certainly not prepared to believe it on your say-so, nor on
that of the temple freaks you quote.
> Many have become aware of Dr. Asher Kaufman's research, which deals with
> the possibility that the Temples may have stood about 100 meters to the
> north of the Dome of the Rock.
Yes, so? There is nothing new in this; Diggings reported it ages ago. It's
not particularly earth-shattering and I think that Christians can sleep in
peace. The Bible isn't going to fall apart just because the temple stood 300
feet north of the Dome of the Rock.
> But we do know that the Temple will be rebuilt. Paul, John, and our
> Lord all make reference to the Temple in events immediately preceding
> Christ's Second Coming.[47]4 And the preparations have begun. The
> major components are moving into place for the final countdown. Have
> you done your homework?
Interesting that you, who so dislike Christians, quotes a Christian source
as your authority. Is there slight inconsistency there?
Kendall K. Down
"Jim Webster" <J...@zerospam.mok.net> wrote:
> so you admit the existance of Omri?
The ignorant son of a whatnot thinks "Merneptah" is another name for
"Shalmaneser III".
Jim Webster
> In message <5bH7e.46492$vd.4...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
> Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>> Clearly your ignorance is only matched by your bigotry and prejudice. The
> Merneptah Stele says none of those things. Why don't you go away and do
some
> study of ancient history and then your opinions might carry some weight.
>
> As for your touching faith that "what is cast in stone is the correct
> version", I presume you have never heard of Rameses II and the Battle of
> Kadesh?
>
Jim Webster
Matt Giwer
>>Bernardz wrote:
Of course all such claims should be considered questionable when invoked by EITHER side of a
disagreement. There is no rule saying they all have to default in favor of religion based beliefs.
And this is religion based as without the bible there would be no one searching for a "lost, great"
kingdom to explain anything that has been found to date.
--
World War II was fought
a) to end the Holocaust
b) to save the Jews
c) to end German antisemitism
d) all of the above
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3405
Matt Giwer
> (a)
Most obviously it was not foundations and partial columns in his day, likely in everyday use.
>>>It is only since we started digging them up that we started to realize
>>>that they were all so similar. Its obviously a style of temple that has
>>>disappeared and its obviously not a Greek design.
>> As I said, what makes you think they disappeared immediately after being built? What makes you
>>think they were not thriving for the Maccabees to use as models?
> (b) Because over 700 years they would have been totally rebuilt. What the
> Maccabees would have had was a Greek temple not a Canaanite temple!
Your invention of total rebuilding is not found by archaeologists. The most found is a change of
gods in the same structure. Usually it is only the addition of gods over time. There is extension,
expansion but no tearing down and rebuilding. Perhaps you can explain why you made up something not
found in the region.
>>>What we have to assume is that if the biblical writer wrote it 700 years
>>>after
>>
>> You have to assume they vanished immediately after construction to claim it was 700 years after.
> see (b) above
I will await your explanation of why you invented it.
>>>1) Either the biblical writer saw a similar working temple that did not
>>>change which very unlikely as the design would have changed many times
>>>during 700 years. Maintenance and repairs over a long period of time
>>>will change the building.
>>
>> Even today churches, particularly Catholic ones, are built in imitation of Dark Ages and
>>Renaissance structures. Why would you consider it unlikely? Certainly bell towers would have
>>disappeared over the centuries.
>>
>> So you make a false assumption of a rate of change which does not exist even in our fast changing
>>times.
> The only reason this can happen as some records existed. See (2) below
> for the problem then with your theory.
> (2)
There were libraries all over the ancient world. Alexander did not invent the idea. The very fact
his source was scrolls being transported by sea through his port shows there was a lively trade in
written material in the ancient world. The idea that records were not available and widespread
appears to be another of your inventions. Clearly Egypt was at least a major exporter of them. One
can reasonably assume they were also an importer of them as Alexander was collecting material from
far away Persia.
>>>2) The writer used an early account which would not be in Greek so their
>>>goes your theory about Greek being the earliest writing.
>>
>> Which goes to your assumption of immediate disappearance after construction. Why would you assume
>>they were not thriving in the time of the Maccabees?
> See (2) and (b) above
I await your explantions for your inventions.
>>>>They were huge constructions, expensive. They likely stood for hundreds
>>>>of years.
>>
>>>Building unless in use are quickly striped down by the locals for their
>>>own use and/or modified by the locals for a new use.
>>
>> And that is why the Bascillia to Mary in Istanbul was originally a Temple to Venus. That is why the
>>Parthenon no longer exists.
>> You assume facts not in evidence in order to argue to your preconceived conclusion.
>> Even the Al Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount is likely built on the foundation of the Temple of
>>Astarte and from the descriptions of the nature themes of the interior may in fact be a conversion
>>of the still standing temple.
> Even assuming this is correct your theory runs into problems for the
> same reasons as above.
> You have also another problem the inside of the Temple of Astarte would
> be quite different to that of the Al Aqsa mosque. So we are back to (2)
> and (b) above.
Why would it be different other than your invention that insides would be different?
Descriptions of the inside mosaics are of nature themes, vines and wildlife, which one would expect
in a fertility cult. Astarte was a fertility goddess. It is not clear Islam would choose such a
theme for decoration much less be any good at it. It is not reported in any other Mosque in the
world. Also no other mosque in the world has eight sides. The only other "temple" with eight sides
is the B'hai offshoot outside of Chicago.
Perhaps you can explain why Islam would "redecorate" a temple of a fertility goddes with fertility
themes only in Jerusalem.
>>>>Some like the Parthenon are still around.
>>>It has been rebuilt many times.
>>
>> That will be news to the Greeks.
> No to you. Check the history of the building.
It is good to know Lord Elgin did not buy the original marbles but later additions by the
Byzantines. As for checking, I find no mention of it at all. Perhaps you have a URL?
>>>>>Check him out here.
>>>>>http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/
>>
>>>> Check out the link marked nizkook in my sig.
>>
>>>So you are saying that you did not say these things that they say you
>>>did. Why not deny that these quotes attributed to you are false and end
>>>the issue.
>>
>> I said the Nizkooks are lying and anyone with even a modest knowledge of usenet knows it. If your
>>studied ignorance does not permit to to understand the usenet then it is clear why you believe so
>>many stupid things about the past.
>> In this particular case, you fail to note Yale the Whale pulled a gun on a witness in court and was
>>the subbie of Sara "Fat Broad" Salzman and their pictures in Domme/Sub regalia have been posted on
>>the internet.
> Irrelevant!
You cite a post by a crazy pervert and you call it irrelevent. To you perhaps.
> You can deny things that you did not say eg if someone said that I said
> that holocaust did not happen, I would say that I don't remember saying
> that and if I did say it I withdraw it as the statement is wrong and
> Holocaust did happen.
The Shoah, the disaster, certainly occured. When the Shoah was fed through Hollywood out came a
typical ahistoric Hollywood production called holocaust. What do you expect from Hollywood?
Historical fact?
>>>http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/m/mcvay-ken/put-up-shut-up.html
It seems obvious to me you have presented nothing I have said but you demand I respond to the
invention of a gun-wielding, crazy pervert. Please tell me why I should?
And I fail to see just what "holocaust" point you might be trying to make of this supposed quote
from me.
>>> "The National Archives which hs the original says differently, of
>>>course. But what do they know."
If by some odd chance I might have said that in some unknown context in some unknown thread in some
unknown subject, just what do you think it says, Mr. Rohrschach?
Differently from what, Mr. Rohrschach?
Were you born this stupid or did all those drugs rot you mind?
--
The best America can field as a holocaust defender
is a religion teacher. Revisionism has won!
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3413
Matt Giwer
> In message <T3I7e.630$_t3....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
> Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>My article will include the known worship of Astarte into the 2nd c AD in Jerusalem
> I have never heard of any such thing and given the level of your historical
> knowledge I am certainly not prepared to believe it on your say-so, nor on
> that of the temple freaks you quote.
You should have by now. Statues of Astarte are found at all arkie levels in Jerusalem but they stop
after Rome rebuilt the city. After the rebuilding Judeans were prohibited from entering the city. No
Judeans not Astarte. QED. There are no special rules applicable for bible beliefs.
I am/am not surprised you missed it.
The Israeli arkies usually soft pedal it by calling it left over pagan worship. Rational people
consider it the goddess of the women as Yahweh was the god of the men and look to the Kab'Allah
which has both god and goddess as the oldest form of Judaism.
>> Many have become aware of Dr. Asher Kaufman's research, which deals with
>> the possibility that the Temples may have stood about 100 meters to the
>> north of the Dome of the Rock.
> Yes, so? There is nothing new in this; Diggings reported it ages ago. It's
> not particularly earth-shattering and I think that Christians can sleep in
> peace. The Bible isn't going to fall apart just because the temple stood 300
> feet north of the Dome of the Rock.
You asked after the Astarte Temple. It falls out of this article. The temple does shatter the myth
of monotheism which shoots the shit out of two major religions and their minor progenitor.
>> But we do know that the Temple will be rebuilt. Paul, John, and our
>> Lord all make reference to the Temple in events immediately preceding
>> Christ's Second Coming.[47]4 And the preparations have begun. The
>> major components are moving into place for the final countdown. Have
>> you done your homework?
> Interesting that you, who so dislike Christians, quotes a Christian source
> as your authority. Is there slight inconsistency there?
As I said, my article will deal objectively with these issues rather than have such believers
issues included.
--
Adherence to Israel by Americans is treason.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3416
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/
Matt Giwer
>>Kendall K. Down wrote:
> water there now.
There is no aquaduct there now nor any evidence there ever was and such huge structures have not
disappeared without trace in two millenia.
In addition the mention of the Gihon spring before the Romans showed up. There is no possibility
there was ever a spring on the temple mount, period. Geology doesn't work that way.
--
If citizens of a democracy are not responsible
for the actions of their government, what is
the point of a democracy?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3409
Matt Giwer
> In message <5bH7e.46492$vd.4...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
> Matt Giwer <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>Good. Then you know DWD is wishful thinking. You also know the translation of BT follows the person
>>name. If a king, BT is a palace, if a god BT is a temple and so forth. It explains the origin of the
>>term 'house of God'. You also know it always refers to a building without exception. As it always
>>refers to a building it cannot refer to a 'dynasty' in the medieval sense of house(hold) which today
>>only applies in British English not not in American English.
> I know no such thing.
There are your main problems. You should know those things.
>>The Merneptah Stele says the battle was against the son of Omri without naming him. The OT says the
>>greatgrandson of Omri was in the fight. It is a matter of true believers matching stories without
>>concern for details. As what is cast in stone is the correct version the OT story is clearly the
>>later invention by someone unfamiliar with local history. As it could have been anyone after the
>>fact I again point to the Greek Septuagint as the original.
> Clearly your ignorance is only matched by your bigotry and prejudice. The
> Merneptah Stele says none of those things. Why don't you go away and do some
> study of ancient history and then your opinions might carry some weight.
There are dozens of URLs on the web where you can read it for yourself. It is foolish to limit
yourself to what other people tell you it says.
> As for your touching faith that "what is cast in stone is the correct
> version", I presume you have never heard of Rameses II and the Battle of
> Kadesh?
Cast in stone as to first appearing in the Greek Septuagint centuries later is a no brainer. You
insistence upon believing without physical evidence gets in your way.
--
When you compare politics as expressed in the headlines
with conspiracy theories the headlines are much more
frightening if they are true.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3389
Matt Giwer
Of a person whose name is commonly translated as Omri of which nothing more than in the inscription
is known, that he oppressed a people (how very unjudaic) and whose son got the shit kicked out of
him and his people destroyed.
We cannot go from that to the bible story as the bible claims it was the great grandson of Omri who
was in the battle and survived. Clearly the bible story is not refering to the story on the stela.
Therefore the bible has no credibility.
--
If the Merchant of Venice had asked for one ounce of flesh
it would have been a rotten play.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3397
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html
Jim Webster
"Matt Giwer" <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aO28e.1755$_t3...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Jim Webster wrote:
> > "Matt Giwer" <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:T3I7e.630$_t3...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> In addition the mention of the Gihon spring before the Romans showed up.
There is no possibility
> there was ever a spring on the temple mount, period. Geology doesn't work
that way.
could you give a source for the geology of the area please
Jim Webster
Jim Webster
> Jim Webster wrote:
> > "Matt Giwer" <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:5bH7e.46492$vd.4...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> >>The Merneptah Stele says the battle was against the son of Omri without
naming him. The OT says the
> >>greatgrandson of Omri was in the fight.
>
> > so you admit the existance of Omri?
>
> Of a person whose name is commonly translated as Omri of which nothing
more than in the inscription
> is known, that he oppressed a people (how very unjudaic) and whose son got
the shit kicked out of
> him and his people destroyed.
>
> We cannot go from that to the bible story as the bible claims it was the
great grandson of Omri who
> was in the battle and survived. Clearly the bible story is not refering to
the story on the stela.
> Therefore the bible has no credibility.
I love the way you unquestioningly believe the version on the stone
all that it shows is that we have two sources for Omri, which are probably
not related. Hence we have good evidence for the existence of Omri
The reason people have mentioned Kadesh to you is that it is a classic
example of the stela is almost certainly going to be a propaganda piece,
which means it is no more or no less reliable as a source than the bible
Jim Webster
Martin Edwards
>
> The reason people have mentioned Kadesh to you is that it is a classic
> example of the stela is almost certainly going to be a propaganda piece,
> which means it is no more or no less reliable as a source than the bible
>
> Jim Webster
>
>
>
Jim Webster
> Jim Webster wrote:
> >
> > The reason people have mentioned Kadesh to you is that it is a classic
> > example of the stela is almost certainly going to be a propaganda piece,
> > which means it is no more or no less reliable as a source than the bible
> >
> > Jim Webster
> >
> >
> >
> Sorry, I can't parse that: I tried three times.
try again
I love the way you unquestioningly believe the version on the stone
all that it shows is that we have two sources for Omri, which are probably
not related. Hence we have good evidence for the existence of Omri
The reason people have mentioned Kadesh to you is that it is a classic
example of a propaganda piece,
Stela tended to be erected as propaganda pieces, hence this means that it
is no more or no less reliable than the bible when considered as a source
Jim Webster
Kendall K. Down
"Jim Webster" <J...@zerospam.mok.net> wrote:
> > As for your touching faith that "what is cast in stone is the correct
> > version", I presume you have never heard of Rameses II and the Battle of
> > Kadesh?
> I mentioned this as an example before but I think it rather passed him by
I gather that rather of lot of what the rest of us call "facts" passes Matt
by. Kooks and nutters, however, get a ready hearing.
Bernardz
> >>>change which very unlikely as the design would have changed many times
> >>>during 700 years. Maintenance and repairs over a long period of time
> >>>will change the building.
> >>
> >> Even today churches, particularly Catholic ones, are built in imitation of Dark Ages and
> >>Renaissance structures. Why would you consider it unlikely? Certainly bell towers would have
> >>disappeared over the centuries.
> >>
> >> So you make a false assumption of a rate of change which does not exist even in our fast changing
> >>times.
>
> > The only reason this can happen as some records existed. See (2) below
> > for the problem then with your theory.
>
> > (2)
>
> There were libraries all over the ancient world. Alexander did not invent the idea. The very fact
> his source was scrolls being transported by sea through his port shows there was a lively trade in
> written material in the ancient world. The idea that records were not available and widespread
> appears to be another of your inventions. Clearly Egypt was at least a major exporter of them. One
> can reasonably assume they were also an importer of them as Alexander was collecting material from
> far away Persia.
Those libraries were not written in Greek. Only came into the region
much later. So the Greek is not the initial source!
QED.
<snip>
So do you feel that the tape is a genuine recording of Heinrich Himmler
Bernardz
> Bernardz wrote:
> > In article <JY37e.60628$Fz.4...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com says...
>
> >>Bernardz wrote:
>
> >>>> A single mention of this King Solomon outside the bible would be a first step.
>
> >>>Your theory requires all archeological evidence in the region till about
> >>>300BCE is false. Good luck!
>
> >> I presented no theory.
>
> > So what are you saying?
>
> I observed the absense of evidence for bible stories. That is a fact not a theory.
Since you have read nothing on the subject by your own admission, how do
you know?
>
> >>I simply challenged you to back up your assumption everything is due to a
> >>mythical person.
>
> > A lie! When did I say that?
>
> Mythical Israelites then. Whatever.
>
> >> Egypt ruled the region for over 1000 years. Why would you ignore that?
>
> > So what!
>
> > Archeological evidence shows that Egyptian influence in the region does
> > not seem to be all encompassing. A typical situation at the frontiers of
> > an empire. Also any reader of the bible would see that the Judahite
> > kings allied themselves with the Egyptians
>
> Egypt ruled up to the Euphrates River. This region cannot be characterized as the frontier.
At times we have reports of Egyptian armies moving in and out of the
region. Political deals done by the Egyptians, it certainly far less
then rule better described as influence although no where near as far as
the Euphrates.
>
> If there were any "judahite" kings they were centuries after Egypt was kicked back to the Nile.
> Again the writers were not familiar with the history of the region and could not have been conemporary.
This is nonsense.
--
It is frightening when you read many of these posts and you realize that
most have been carefully thought out before posting.
Observations of Bernard - No 73
Matt Giwer
> "Matt Giwer" <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:nW28e.560$716...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>Jim Webster wrote:
>>>"Matt Giwer" <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:5bH7e.46492$vd.4...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>The Merneptah Stele says the battle was against the son of Omri without naming him. The OT says the
>>>>greatgrandson of Omri was in the fight.
>>>so you admit the existance of Omri?
>>Of a person whose name is commonly translated as Omri of which nothing more than in the inscription
>>is known, that he oppressed a people (how very unjudaic) and whose son got the shit kicked out of
>>him and his people destroyed.
>>We cannot go from that to the bible story as the bible claims it was the great grandson of Omri who
>>was in the battle and survived. Clearly the bible story is not refering to the story on the stela.
>>Therefore the bible has no credibility.
> I love the way you unquestioningly believe the version on the stone
If you can come up with a bible version in stone then there is some competition.
As it stands we have somewhat datable stone against written material which first appeared in the
mid-3rd c BC in Greek.
You appear to want to accept and written source older than the Septuagint for which there is no
physical evidence and which exists only in the imaginations of bible believers. And the belief is
based solely upon a statement by Josephus three centuries later and an undatable forgery which
existed in his time.
Why do you wish to believe this? It is not even a bible claim. The idea is clearly a human invention.
> all that it shows is that we have two sources for Omri, which are probably
> not related. Hence we have good evidence for the existence of Omri
We have evidence for a person named Omri only from that stela. We know only he was an oppressor of
some other people.
From the bible we know the stela does not refer to the Omri in the bible. The stories are
irreconcilable. No place in archaeology is such a discrepency handwaved away or ignored. There are
no exceptions for bible stories.
> The reason people have mentioned Kadesh to you is that it is a classic
> example of the stela is almost certainly going to be a propaganda piece,
> which means it is no more or no less reliable as a source than the bible
If can produce evidence of a source older than the Septuagint you have a chance to establish your
position. But you cannot. You cannot even reconcile the two stories.
--
The greater the ascendency of democracy the more important the
opinion of the man in the street and the less important
the opinion of the government.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3396
Matt Giwer
> In article <FjG7e.46485$vd.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com says...
>>Bernardz wrote:
>>>In article <JY37e.60628$Fz.4...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com says...
>>>>Bernardz wrote:
>>>>>> A single mention of this King Solomon outside the bible would be a first step.
>>>>>Your theory requires all archeological evidence in the region till about
>>>>>300BCE is false. Good luck!
>>>> I presented no theory.
>>>So what are you saying?
>> I observed the absense of evidence for bible stories. That is a fact not a theory.
> Since you have read nothing on the subject by your own admission, how do
> you know?
I have read every word available regarding the physical evidence. I do not bother with abstract
argumentation as it proceeds towards the believers preconceived conclusion.
>>>>I simply challenged you to back up your assumption everything is due to a
>>>>mythical person.
>>>A lie! When did I say that?
>> Mythical Israelites then. Whatever.
>>>> Egypt ruled the region for over 1000 years. Why would you ignore that?
>>>So what!
>>>Archeological evidence shows that Egyptian influence in the region does
>>>not seem to be all encompassing. A typical situation at the frontiers of
>>>an empire. Also any reader of the bible would see that the Judahite
>>>kings allied themselves with the Egyptians
>> Egypt ruled up to the Euphrates River. This region cannot be characterized as the frontier.
> At times we have reports of Egyptian armies moving in and out of the
> region. Political deals done by the Egyptians, it certainly far less
> then rule better described as influence although no where near as far as
> the Euphrates.
Egyptian records indicate and arkie finds have confirmed. Why would you hold stories for which
there is no evidence of existence before mid 3rd c BC be taken seriously?
>> If there were any "judahite" kings they were centuries after Egypt was kicked back to the Nile.
>>Again the writers were not familiar with the history of the region and could not have been conemporary.
> This is nonsense.
It is also what is known from the physical evidence and Egyptian records. That is disagrees with a
much later creation in Greek is hardly of interest regardless of how many people have been trained
to believe it from infancy.
--
When telling holocaust stories never forget all the
lies and liars about human soap and steam chambers.
-- The Iron Webmasters, 3412
Matt Giwer
>>>>>1) Either the biblical writer saw a similar working temple that did not
>>>>>change which very unlikely as the design would have changed many times
>>>>>during 700 years. Maintenance and repairs over a long period of time
>>>>>will change the building.
>>>> Even today churches, particularly Catholic ones, are built in imitation of Dark Ages and
>>>>Renaissance structures. Why would you consider it unlikely? Certainly bell towers would have
>>>>disappeared over the centuries.
>>>> So you make a false assumption of a rate of change which does not exist even in our fast changing
>>>>times.
>>>The only reason this can happen as some records existed. See (2) below
>>>for the problem then with your theory.
>>>(2)
>> There were libraries all over the ancient world. Alexander did not invent the idea. The very fact
>>his source was scrolls being transported by sea through his port shows there was a lively trade in
>>written material in the ancient world. The idea that records were not available and widespread
>>appears to be another of your inventions. Clearly Egypt was at least a major exporter of them. One
>>can reasonably assume they were also an importer of them as Alexander was collecting material from
>>far away Persia.
> Those libraries were not written in Greek. Only came into the region
> much later. So the Greek is not the initial source!
> QED.
They were copied. There is no mention of translation in Alexander's orders as they have survived.
Greek was a lingua franca in the region after Alexander. And there wasn't as much difference back
then as there is today in the indo-european languages. A literate person could likely survive from
Greece to Persia only needing a translator when roughing it outside the big cities in Egypt.
And why have you not explained why you made up the idea of rebuilding temples just to make your
biblethumping fantasies sound plausible.
> <snip>
>>>>>http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/m/mcvay-ken/put-up-shut-up.html
What tape are you talking about?
Almost every day in Haaretz I read quotes and statements that the squatters are going to be
uprooted and evacuated (ausrottung und evaklarung) by Sharon. Are you telling me he is going to
exterminate them? I thought they were just finally going to make Aliyah. Strange people who travel
thousands of miles to get to Israel and object to traveling the last ten miles to get there.
Is that the tape you mean?
--
If Syria is supposed to withdraw from Lebanon
should not Israel withdraw from Syria?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3403
Matt Giwer
> "Matt Giwer" <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:aO28e.1755$_t3...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>Jim Webster wrote:
>>>"Matt Giwer" <ma...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:T3I7e.630$_t3...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>In addition the mention of the Gihon spring before the Romans showed up. There is no possibility
>>there was ever a spring on the temple mount, period. Geology doesn't work that way.
> could you give a source for the geology of the area please
There are dozens of sources. But you first need to learn how springs work. To have a spring there
you first need a higher source which would collect rain water. It is all gravity. Nature has no pumps.
That source is what the Romans tapped for their aquaduct. It would all run downhill by gravity. And
that is what is refered to as being sluiced by the temple after it was built. Same temple with
spring and with aquaduct.